But fair enough, it might not actually be most websites, but enough to not be a rare experience either.
- 131 network calls
- 280 kilobytes of data received
- 4500ms total network time
Thankfully, the vast majority of other websites aren't nearly this bad, but we're trending towards twitter as an industry, not away from it.
I try to write API calls that provide broadband utility and return lightning fast by always making sure my critical path gets a fair shake for optimization, but I know there exist calls out there in react land that take my 220ms response and spend an extra 7 seconds transforming it to populate a (paginated) table on the UI.
And GP's point still stands. 17ms vs the typical 2s minimum a site takes to load is massive given the differences in what is demanded. Games actively got faster despite being more intense, websites active got slower despite relatively similar output.
Webdev's performance is shocklingly bad relative to most other subfields.
You too ignore this.
Plenty of websites scroll at 60fps or 120fps just fine (and those that don’t definitely deserve to be criticised).
How many console games can load from scratch in only a few seconds?
It's no longer a universal truth that a adblocker will save you memory or CPU, ad-blockers contribute greatly to the per-tab memory cost. They also slow down page rendering greatly.
But, hey, the web is an unusable mess without them so we all use one and it's considered the cost of doing business.
The problem with remarks like this is that if this was really your experience of using the web you'd have installed an ad blocker years ago, and you wouldn't make that argument now. Consequently either it's easily dismiasable as hyperbole or you're a masochist who enjoys terrible websites.
There are bad websites. It isn't "most websites" though. Just like some games drop frames horribly, but not "most games".