Arguments You’ll Almost Never Hear
Here’s a bit of a cheeky question…
You know all those "conversations" us nerds have about scalability and performance where we endlessly debate about where to put business logic and whether scaling the database is easier than scaling the application servers? Well, how come we never end up talking about how to make arguably the most costly (in terms of both time and $$$) operation of our applications perform better?
The costly operation I’m talking about is the journey our markup makes from the web server to the browser. It’s funny, because we’ll architect fantastic applications, and then shove absolutely bloated junk markup across the vast, unreliable Internet without a second thought. That shit costs money too… (I’m talking about bandwidth). And it’s code that’s visible to the world.
8 Responses to “Arguments You’ll Almost Never Hear”
Leave a Reply
Arguments You’ll Almost Never Hear
Here’s a bit of a cheeky question…
You know all those "conversations" us nerds have about scalability and performance where we endlessly debate about where to put business logic and whether scaling the database is easier than scaling the application servers? Well, how come we never end up talking about how to make arguably the most costly (in terms of both time and $$$) operation of our applications perform better?
The costly operation I’m talking about is the journey our markup makes from the web server to the browser. It’s funny, because we’ll architect fantastic applications, and then shove absolutely bloated junk markup across the vast, unreliable Internet without a second thought. That shit costs money too… (I’m talking about bandwidth). And it’s code that’s visible to the world.
8 Responses to “Arguments You’ll Almost Never Hear”
-
Mike Buckley Says:
June 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pmGreat post. I have a fantastic example in mind =p
-
Mo Says:
June 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pmI couldn’t agree more! Not only that but do we really need to always use dynamic controls to render static content?
For instance when ASP.NET churns out our in to tags. What’s the point if it’s static?Don’t get me started on the over use of tables!
-
Nathan Says:
June 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pmWow. Jeff. Your thoughts show amazing insight. It’s really cool to see you talking your craft.
-
Jeff Perrin Says:
June 17th, 2007 at 9:57 amNathan: Yeah, combine my incredible insight with my innate sex appeal and you have a very dangerous combination.
-
Daren Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 amInteresting point Jeff.
It seems these days that markup optimization is often an afterthought. It always striked me a bit odd that people could push out these bloated websites totally ignoring tableless design, CSS Control adapters, output caching etc.
I think it’s a bit risky considering the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the web. I mean a website could be attracting 500 visitors one week, and then 500,000 the week after (ok this doesn’t happen all the time but it does happen). So I am not sure how a owner would feel if he/she is all of a sudden paying for excess bandwidth.
I came across an interesting a couple of years ago that looked at Microsoft’s website and really puts things into perspective regarding excess bandwidth consumption etc.
-
Jay R. Wren Says:
August 6th, 2007 at 10:09 amWe are talking about it.
http://www.ayende.com/Blog/archive/2006/10/26/7147.aspx
http://www.aspnetpro.com/newsletterarticle/2004/04/asp200404dk_l/asp200404dk_l.asp
http://codebetter.com/blogs/raymond.lewallen/archive/2005/02/22/51315.aspx
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/AMultirequestsafeViewStatePersister.aspx
http://tuldoklambat.blogspot.com/2005/11/viewstate-compression-and-_113274519039560470.html
-
foobar Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pmYou actually think this is a problem? Why aren’t you using HTTP compression then?
This problem was solved in the 90s. Sorry.
-
Jeff Perrin Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pmAll the HTTP compression in the world isn’t going to squish a GIF or JPEG down any significant amount. Sure, text can be compressed, but that ain’t the whole picture.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Great post. I have a fantastic example in mind =p
June 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I couldn’t agree more! Not only that but do we really need to always use dynamic controls to render static content?
For instance when ASP.NET churns out our in to tags. What’s the point if it’s static?
Don’t get me started on the over use of tables!
June 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Wow. Jeff. Your thoughts show amazing insight. It’s really cool to see you talking your craft.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Nathan: Yeah, combine my incredible insight with my innate sex appeal and you have a very dangerous combination.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 am
Interesting point Jeff.
It seems these days that markup optimization is often an afterthought. It always striked me a bit odd that people could push out these bloated websites totally ignoring tableless design, CSS Control adapters, output caching etc.
I think it’s a bit risky considering the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the web. I mean a website could be attracting 500 visitors one week, and then 500,000 the week after (ok this doesn’t happen all the time but it does happen). So I am not sure how a owner would feel if he/she is all of a sudden paying for excess bandwidth.
I came across an interesting a couple of years ago that looked at Microsoft’s website and really puts things into perspective regarding excess bandwidth consumption etc.
http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/
August 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
We are talking about it.
http://www.ayende.com/Blog/archive/2006/10/26/7147.aspx
http://www.aspnetpro.com/newsletterarticle/2004/04/asp200404dk_l/asp200404dk_l.asp
http://codebetter.com/blogs/raymond.lewallen/archive/2005/02/22/51315.aspx
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/AMultirequestsafeViewStatePersister.aspx
http://tuldoklambat.blogspot.com/2005/11/viewstate-compression-and-_113274519039560470.html
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
You actually think this is a problem? Why aren’t you using HTTP compression then?
This problem was solved in the 90s. Sorry.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
All the HTTP compression in the world isn’t going to squish a GIF or JPEG down any significant amount. Sure, text can be compressed, but that ain’t the whole picture.