| ▲ | 1vuio0pswjnm7 2 days ago | |
Assuming most of these sites use Javascript, perhaps the size of memory use should also be considered I use a text-only HTML viewer, no Javascript interpreter. This is either a 2M or 1.3M static binary The size of the web page does not slow it down much, and I have never managed to crash it in over 15 years of use, unlike a popular browser I routinely load catenated HTML files much larger than those found on the web. For example, on a severly underpowered computer, loading a 16M stored HTML file into the text-only client's cache takes about 8 seconds I can lazily write custom commandline HTML filters that are much faster than Python or Javascript to extract and transform any web page into SQL or CSV. These filter are each ~40K static binary As an experment I sloppily crammed 63 different web page styles into a single filter. The result was a 1.6M static binary I use this filter every day for command line search I'm a hobbyist, an "end user", not a developer | ||
| ▲ | 1vuio0pswjnm7 8 hours ago | parent [-] | |
It appears the structure of the HTML being rendered affects loading time For example, another 7.4 MB HTML file that is basically just a list of URLs loads in about 1.41s | ||