Programming

17507 readers

9 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

124

One company found that too much JavaScript costs them $700,000 per year, per kilobyte. (thenewstack.io)

submitted 1 year ago by starman to c/programming

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This was more interesting than I expected. Though they didn’t clarify why it costs $700,000, given the context I assume it’s customers on slower devices/connectivity leaving rather than something like bandwidth?

[–] RarePossum 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Amazon found back in 2006 that every 100ms page load time resulted in -1% sales, and considering that they're talking about bloat yeah, it'd be just from the increase load time/customers lost.

[–] ICastFist 9 points 1 year ago

The funny thing is that internet speeds, back in 2006, were significantly lower than today. And here we are, with 10x the speeds and pages somehow loading slower than back then!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

That was what I got from the article too. That the 700k was lost opportunity due to a poor user experience, not that it actually was them spending more money.

[–] ndotb 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Often, it boils down to one common problem: Too much client-side JavaScript. This is not a cost-free error. One retailer realized they were losing $700,000 a year per kilobyte of JavaScript, Russell said.

“You may be losing all of the users who don’t have those devices because the experience is so bad,” he said.

They just didn't link to the one retailer's context. But it's "bring back old reddit" energy directed at everything SPA-ish.

edit to give it a little personal context: I was stuck on geosat internet for a little while and could not use amazon's site across the connection. I'm not sure if they're the retailer mentioned. But the only way I could make it usable was to apply the ublock rule *.images-amazon.com/*.js^ described here.

What really stunk about it was that if you're somewhere where geosat is/was the only option, then you're highly dependent on online retail. And knowing how to manage ublock rules is not exactly widespread knowledge.

[–] malloc 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One retailer realized they were losing $700,000 a year per kilobyte of JavaScript, Russell said.

It’s a retailer so definitely lost sales or conversions

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

At $700k per kb, it really can't be anyone other than Amazon.