Webmaster forum - Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish?

Author

Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish?

Charles

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish. I also
find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
slow and non-responsive also.
Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish? I think web
browsers should provide native functions to create effects. Using such
functions would be a lot faster than in Javascript.

Chaddy2222

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

GreyWyvern

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

And lo, Charles didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:

> I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish. I also
> find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
> slow and non-responsive also.

Perhaps it's your browser. Which one are you using? Have you tried using
Yahoo!Mail Beta with a different browser?

Also, keep in mind that Ajax is only as fast as the latency of the
connection you're using. If you're on dial-up or even broadband satellite
(high latency), Ajax web applications will seem to react slower, due to
longer round-trips to the server.

> Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish? I think web
> browsers should provide native functions to create effects. Using such
> functions would be a lot faster than in Javascript.

That is a horrible idea. Another set of native functions for browsers to
implement in X different ways? No thanks. At least javascript has a
(relatively) consistent implementation across scriptable browsers.

Don't forget that computers and connections are speeding up all the time.
Even if sluggishness is a problem for you now, it won't be for very long.
Have patience with the future, it will arrive shortly.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

Gwin

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

On Jul 11, 9:03 am, Charles <landema...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish. I also
> find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
> slow and non-responsive also.
> Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish?

nope
you and a bunch of other slow connectivity users who don't run thin
browsers think so too.

Charles

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

On Jul 11, 1:41 pm, Gwin <g...@mindless.com> wrote:
> you and a bunch of other slow connectivity users who don't run thin
> browsers think so too.

I consider myself a normal user, with a simple DSL connection and a
thin browser (Opera 9).

Charles

2007-07-11, 10:17 pm

On Jul 11, 1:29 pm, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.com> wrote:
> That is a horrible idea. Another set of native functions for browsers to
> implement in X different ways? No thanks. At least javascript has a
> (relatively) consistent implementation across scriptable browsers.

Yes, Grey, I mean a extension to the current standard, something
implemented the same way accross browsers and backed by the W3C, not
some sort of MS-only proprietary framework.

ol'softy

2007-07-12, 6:16 am

Charles <landemaine@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish.

Personally I consider Flash to be an abomination. About Flex I have
no opinion.

> I also
>find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
>slow and non-responsive also.

Server load is a major consideration.

>Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish?

The design of the web-app and the server's ability to handle the
actual load both come into play... as well as end-user connectivity
and net load. It isn't inherently true that web-apps *must* be
sluggish, but if you want performance you have to pay for it one way
or another.

> I think web
>browsers should provide native functions to create effects. Using such
>functions would be a lot faster than in Javascript.

You'll need to be very patient indeed for that one.

--
contact via http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft

ol'softy

2007-07-12, 6:16 am

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>Charles wrote:
>Perhaps if web development companies created sites that were less
>shite *eg if they used more server side technology to power the
>Aplications instead of crap old JS, oh I mean Web 2.0 or what ever new
>hip sounding name you want to give it this week then the web would be
>better.

Some things belong on the front-end and some on the back-end. I'm of
the opinion that given the nature of the browser/net/server
combination, doing as much as possible on the back-end is the only way
to achieve a reasonable level of control. Users who have turned off
the front-end functionality you depend on will apparently always
exist, so I try to keep the front-end as bare as possible (to the
extent of not even using cookies). It's a tradeoff, there are lots of
cute things that can be done nicely in a browser scripting language if
you don't mine shooing away anyone who's disabled it. Then of course
there are the inevitable version differences, though fairly minimal
those will always happen... you write your code for one version of the
scripting language, then a year or two later you find it's broken in
the next release and have to begin supporting multiple versions. I
prefer to avoid the entire issue by keeping everything on the
back-end. Mileage clearly varies.

--
contact via http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft

ol'softy

2007-07-12, 6:16 am

Charles <landemaine@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>On Jul 11, 1:29 pm, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, Grey, I mean a extension to the current standard, something
>implemented the same way accross browsers and backed by the W3C, not
>some sort of MS-only proprietary framework.

Not only will you have to wait for browser developers to decide your
proposed features merit a chunk of their already-overburdened time,
the new functions may open holes for hackers etc. You'd almost
certainly also have to wrangle them into the *tml definitions. I'd
not hold my breath, really.

--
contact via http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft

ol'softy

2007-07-12, 6:16 am

Charles <landemaine@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>On Jul 11, 1:41 pm, Gwin <g...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>I consider myself a normal user, with a simple DSL connection and a
>thin browser (Opera 9).

Opera used to be a thin browser. I've stopped using Opera in favor of
Firefox, which starts up faster and delivers most of the goods I first
saw in Opera. Opera is another victim of feature-creep. Achiving
massive levels of functionality without forfeiting footprint and
performance is costly in terms of developer time.

--
contact via http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft

Charles

2007-07-12, 6:16 am

On Jul 12, 6:13 am, ol'softy <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
> Opera used to be a thin browser. I've stopped using Opera in favor of
> Firefox, which starts up faster and delivers most of the goods I first
> saw in Opera. Opera is another victim of feature-creep. Achiving
> massive levels of functionality without forfeiting footprint and
> performance is costly in terms of developer time.

I still find Opera lighter and faster than Firefox although it has a
lot more features (email client, usenet client, IRC client, BitTorrent
client, etc...).

GreyWyvern

2007-07-12, 6:16 pm

And lo, Charles didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:

> On Jul 12, 6:13 am, ol'softy <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
>
>
> I still find Opera lighter and faster than Firefox although it has a
> lot more features (email client, usenet client, IRC client, BitTorrent
> client, etc...).

Seconded. And I open both on a daily basis to test designs.

It should also be noted that the current released Opera version is a
"dead" branch. They are preparing to release a new version in the next
few months which contains dozens of completely overhauled areas including
the page rendering engine and mail client.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

Gwin

2007-07-12, 6:16 pm

On Jul 12, 8:23 am, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.com> wrote:
> And lo, Charles didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
>
>
> Seconded. And I open both on a daily basis to test designs.
>
> It should also be noted that the current released Opera version is a
> "dead" branch. They are preparing to release a new version in the next
> few months which contains dozens of completely overhauled areas including
> the page rendering engine and mail client.
>
> Grey

ff with all the extensions and addons with auto check for updates will
slow the beast down also.
check out the safari for windows
http://www.apple.com/safari/

SpaceGirl

2007-07-12, 6:16 pm

On Jul 11, 5:03 pm, Charles <landema...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish. I also
> find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
> slow and non-responsive also.
> Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish? I think web
> browsers should provide native functions to create effects. Using such
> functions would be a lot faster than in Javascript.

Am I the only one who thinks the sky is to blue?

You can't generalise like that. Some apps are fast, some are slow.
Some people have broadband, some do not. Some people are a continent
away from the application server, some are not.

Gwin

2007-07-12, 6:16 pm

On Jul 12, 9:00 am, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:03 pm, Charles <landema...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one who thinks the sky is to blue?

lol

you ain't gonna taint this crowd
you're in a different league on a different level

ol'softy

2007-07-12, 10:18 pm

Charles <landemaine@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 6:13 am, ol'softy <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
>
>
>I still find Opera lighter and faster than Firefox although it has a
>lot more features (email client, usenet client, IRC client, BitTorrent
>client, etc...).

<shrug> The only one of those features that I use, occasionally, is
Opera's IRC client, which has a very nice interface. I also like
Opera's customization facilities *much* better than Firefox's. But on
my aging system Opera takes about 3 times as long to start up as
Firefox, and all other things being more or less the same, well you
know how that goes.

--
contact via http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft

Roman

2007-07-13, 10:19 pm

Charles wrote:
> I think Flash and Flex content is quite heavy and sluggish. I also
> find that interfaces such as the Ajax-based Yahoo!Mail Beta is very
> slow and non-responsive also.
> Am I the only one who thinks webapps are sluggish? I think web
> browsers should provide native functions to create effects. Using such
> functions would be a lot faster than in Javascript.
>

Badly designed webapps are sluggish. Webapps that need to do 20 database
transactions per HTTP request, webapps that need to download 30 support
JS and JPG files per each request, running on virtual server shared with
899 other accounts.

On the other hand Yahoo is being accessed by 1mil users at every moment
(I made up that number).

My websites with 2000 UV per month are not sluggish even on shared hosting.

OTOH, did not computers get sluggish in general? I remember running
Turbo Pascal on my 386/40MHz and it was blasting fast. Today when I
click on something in my Visual Studio 2005 on P4/2.6G it may take many
seconds for something to happen.

Gwin

2007-07-14, 6:18 pm