> I also don’t see any bloat or something, they all render instantly on both my pc and my phone.
That's because both our phones and computers have multicore CPUs running billions of instructions per second per core. So all the bloat gets executed quickly, and we don't get to notice that it's there.
Due to my "roots" I'm capable of painting a "site" fully myself, given only the windowing API and e.g. pango/cairo (too lazy to reserach into skia) and a few utility libraries. I had actually created a fully working gui framework in the past using only drawing and windowing libs.
And I can tell you that a browser is an absolute technological atrocity that is full of binary bloat and practical (as in, not on paper) inefficiencies. An additional layer that generates 2000-or-so {}s per mutating interaction doesn't add much to this. It doesn't add anything at all, unless you're armed with a profiler.
"Browsers are fast and efficient" is a fucking lie. Same for HTML. You're looking for bloat in the wrong places. The only reason you don't realize it is because
both our phones and computers have multicore CPUs running billions of instructions per second per core. So all the bloat gets executed quickly, and we don't get to notice that it's there.
For example, this almost empty, absolutely js-less "Add comment" page I'm writing this comment on takes 50MB (a clean browser run, ALL plugins disabled). That's only the page -- the entire browser takes 450MB.
A full-blown gtk-based backup app that I'm using, with numerous screens and layouts, only uses 14MB, and total 35MB after I click through all of its screens, settings, managers, etc. You can't even fathom how much memory it would take if it was browser-based.
That's because both our phones and computers have multicore CPUs running billions of instructions per second per core. So all the bloat gets executed quickly, and we don't get to notice that it's there.
But it's there. And it's dirty.