[lphnull]

The web isn't what it was back in the 90s and early 2000s though. Back then, you wanted a website to last because there wasn't much on the web to begin with. Those of us who were online owned a reasonable amount of web bookmarks that led us to nice solid pages that were designed to load nice and fast over slower connections.

Nowadays, the landscape is way different. There are just so many "normal folk" on the internet now that content is being consumed at an alarming rate. There is so much stuff on the internet now, that even Youtube videos have become disposable. Most of the stuff that people read and watch now is consumed once and then never visited again because there's just not enough time to revisit the insane amount of content we're exposed to.

Nowadays, why does it matter if a website is made "brittle" if the content isn't going to matter in a few months anyways? And if you do want to archive something for later, shouldn't the words on the page matter more than the code behind it? After all, if a user 12 years from now wants to read your article, all they're going to want is your words and pictures. Code is always brittle because new technology makes everything obsolete.

[acdha]

Having been a web developer in that era, performance was definitely a big concern. People were more willing to wait but there were still limits and you had the same tendencies for developers to work on fast systems and forget the experience on slow ones.

AMP is also a worse experience than that was because in the 90s you were usually waiting on images to render and progressive display was usually possible so you could start seeing that fuzzy JPEG fairly quickly and read the rest of an article, whereas AMP by design prevents anything from displaying until it’s loaded and executed correctly so you often have to reload the page to see anything at all when it fails.

This matters because most of where AMP was marketed to are competitive fields and that means it’s training users that they’ll get what they want faster and more reliably somewhere else.

[lphnull]

I remember browsing the web on my old Nokia N900 phone and watching everything get progressively slower as javascript started getting more and more memory intensive. Eventually I stopped receiving updates, and the entire web became unusable because lots and lots of websites break without javascript now.

[matt_kantor]

> Nowadays, why does it matter if a website is made "brittle" if the content isn't going to matter in a few months anyways?

One reason is brand perception. If your website is significantly slower and/or brokener than a competitor's then eventually people will stop coming back. Presumably you want your brand to last more than a few months.