I’m with you. but what does 60kb download is in this day? its nothing actually. (milliseconds)
you will lose way more in just one query that need a simple adjustment. or some page icons change or removal.
and these speed tests are not solid for comparison at this tiny level
I think it’s partly a sort of matter of principal. In some areas of development, you might go to great lengths to make something work as efficiently as possible. Achieving something using 2 lines of code is a lot more satisfying than doing the same thing with 20 lines - although the performance increase might be insignifcant.
Having hundreds or thousands of extra lines of code (eg with Bootstrap) feels rather unsatisfactory, although the extra download size is no more than having an extra image on the page. I imagine there must be some extra overhead for the browser to parse an unnecessarily huge css file. I have no idea how signficant this might be; probably not very.
Usually cached after the first load so subsequent loading (unless user changes caching settings or clears etc), will make no difference to load times. In essence its a one time affair. Essentially its minuscule.
Lets face it most people have Avast installed, McAfee, Defender, etc. Link checking enabled, site security checks enabled, proxies, and all other types of interference that could be detrimental to loading times. All out of the control of the developer, BUT, to the user the page loads slowly…
To us shaving KBs is a dead end when so much depends upon the user and their browser configuration. Which for the most part is poor and overwhelmed with sh1tty extensions.
I was referring to the css parsing rather than the downloading - or do you mean that’s cached in some way too? Either way, I agree the performance impact is minimal.