←back to thread

752 points dceddia | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.805s | source
Show context
yomlica8 ◴[] No.36447314[source]
It blows my mind how unresponsive modern tech is, and it frustrates me constantly. What makes it even worse is how unpredictable the lags are so you can't even train yourself around it.

I was watching Halt and Catch Fire and in the first season the engineering team makes a great effort to meet something called the "Doherty Threshold" to keep the responsiveness of the machine so the user doesn't get frustrated and lose interest. I guess that is lost to time!

replies(18): >>36447344 #>>36447520 #>>36447558 #>>36447932 #>>36447949 #>>36449090 #>>36449889 #>>36450472 #>>36450591 #>>36451868 #>>36452042 #>>36453741 #>>36454246 #>>36454271 #>>36454404 #>>36454473 #>>36462340 #>>36469396 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.36447344[source]
Even worse is the new trend of web pages optimizing for page load time. You wind up with a page that loads "instantly" but has almost none of the data you need displayed. Instead there are 2 or 3 AJAX requests to load the data & populate the DOM. Each one results in a repaint, wasting CPU and causing the page content to move around.
replies(13): >>36447430 #>>36448035 #>>36448135 #>>36448336 #>>36448834 #>>36449278 #>>36449850 #>>36450266 #>>36454683 #>>36455856 #>>36456553 #>>36457699 #>>36458429 #
danieldk ◴[] No.36448336[source]
This drives me crazy, especially because it breaks finding within a page. Eg. if you order food and you already know what you want.

Old days: Cmd + f, type what you want.

New days: first scroll to the end of the page so that all the contents are actually loaded. Cmd + f, type what you want.

Is just a list of dishes, some with small thumbnails, some without any images at all. If you can't load a page with 30 dishes fast enough, you have a serious problem (you could always lazily load the thumbnails if you want to cheat).

replies(6): >>36448673 #>>36448968 #>>36449626 #>>36449636 #>>36449814 #>>36454049 #
sazz ◴[] No.36449636[source]
Well, the tech stack is insane: Some virtual machine running a web browser process running a virtual machine for a html renderer which consumes a document declaration language incorporating a scripting language to overcome the document limitations trying to build interactive programs.

Actually much worse as Microsoft once did with their COM model, ActiveX based on MFC foundation classes with C++ templates, etc.

And to build those interactive programs somebody is trained to use React, Vue, etc. using their own eco systems of tools. This is operated by a stack of build tools, a stack of distribution tools, kubernetes for hosting and AWS for managing that whole damn thing.

Oh - and do not talk even about Dependency Management, Monitoring, Microservices, Authorization and so on...

But I really wonder - what would be more complex?

Building interactive programs based on HTML or Logo (if anybody does remember)?

replies(7): >>36449860 #>>36449954 #>>36450498 #>>36451505 #>>36452358 #>>36453795 #>>36454122 #
meese712 ◴[] No.36453795[source]
Here's a fun fact, most fonts have a font program written in a font specific instruction set that requires a virtual machine to run. There is no escaping the VMs!
replies(1): >>36453995 #
1. DaiPlusPlus ◴[] No.36453995[source]
A VM is not a VM. Just because a program’s semantics are defined in-terms of “a” virtual-machine (Java, .NET, etc) - it’s otherwise entirely unrelated to virtualisation.
replies(2): >>36469595 #>>36627695 #
2. froggit ◴[] No.36469595[source]
It always kind of cracks me up when I hear someone having to explain the difference between between these 2 breeds of VM.

At one point back in school a friend said to me "hey, I can't figure out how to install and boot JVM on Virtual Box. I need to use it for homework in another class. Help me?"

I wish I had been able to explain it as succinctly as you. Instead I sat there laughing in the guy's face for a good minute, eventually realizing from his expression that he was being serious, which only made me laugh even harder.

replies(1): >>36627461 #
3. ◴[] No.36627461[source]
4. ◴[] No.36627695[source]