On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Steve D'Aprano <steve+pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:04 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I thought some might find this >> https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/ interesting. > > "Made with the new Google Sites, an effortless way to create beautiful sites." > > More like an effortless way to create a complete dog's breakfast. Once upon a > time, web sites would degrade gracefully. If something interrupted the page > loading, or something wasn't quite right, or you'd still get something usable. > Now, if the tiniest thing goes wrong, you get a junk. > > I've tried to see the results, but I just get a bunch of broken images :-( > > > On the linked page, starting from the top and scrolling down, I see: > > - about two screens worth of black white space; > > - followed by three giant black horizontal bars, each one about an inch high; > > - more white space; > > - what looks like something that was intended to be a side-bar, containing: > > SLE'17 > Home > Results > Setup > More > > - a giant down-pointing arrowhead, about three inches tall, which turns > grey when you mouse-over it but doesn't do anything when clicked; > > - three more links: > > Home > Results > Setup > > which disappear when you mouse-over them; > > - finally some content! > > The tools and graphical data pointed by this page are included in the > research paper "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How does > Energy, Time and Memory Relate?", accepted at the International Conference > on Software Language Engineering (SLE) > > [1] Measuring Framework & Benchmarks > [2] Complete Set of Results > [3] Setup > [4] Paper > > > where the last four bits are links; > > - the smug, self-congratulatory comment quoted above about "beautiful sites"; > > - a button "Create a site" > > - What was presumably intended to be a link, but is actually just a piece of > plain text: "Report abuse"; > > - more whitespace; > > - and finally a giant blue "i", pointed at the bottom, and slanted at 45 > degrees. Presumably a logo for somebody or something. > > > And yes, I am allowing scripts from Google and Gstatic to run, and the page is > still broken.
It looks fine to me. > Including the hyperlinks, that's about 700 bytes of actual content. Let's > double > it for the overhead of HTML over plain text, so somewhat less than 1.5 KiB of > content. > > The actual page is 27285 bytes or over 26 KiB. That gives us something with a > useful content to bloat factor of 1:17, and *the page still doesn't work.* > > And that's not even counting any additional files the page requires, like CSS, > external javascript files, images, ads, web-bugs, etc. You want to know why > browsing the web today on full ADSL or faster speeds is *slower* than using a > dial up modem in the 1990s? This is why. > > www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/why_your_internet_experience_i.html > > Nine years later, and the problem is worse, not better. If you're using a cell phone over 2G, then I tentatively agree. But on my laptop over WiFi, this page that you're complaining about loaded in 783 ms when I tried it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
