[bezbac]

That's not fair. Sure, if there's an experienced dev who _values_ efficiency on the team, who pushes for the site to be more efficient or builds it more efficiently to begin with, the page would be better off. But it's mostly about incentives. If management doesn't care, they will likely not react well to programmers spending time making the site more efficient instead of spending half the time to just get it running and then crunching through their backlog.

[zilti]

It usually requires less time, not more, to create a slim and efficient page.

[actuallyalys]

It's very situational. If you're talking about writing a static site generator or handcoding a web page, that's mostly true, although if you're trying to not just be efficient, but as efficient as possible, things like optimizing assets are a small but additional step.

If you're maintaining a web app over a period of years, it takes at least some effort and time to keep it slim and efficient because small inefficiencies here and there start to accumulate and these tend to be more demanding even in the best case.

There are some antifeatures that Dan Luu identifies, like dynamically unloading content, that probably take a considerable amount of time to implement while degrading both the user experience and efficiency, but I doubt avoiding those is enough to ensure good performance on more complicated projects.

[rokkamokka]

Definitely not true in my experience, and I would think if it were true, most pages would be "slim and efficient". Where is the business value in doing anything else at that point?

[danlugo92]

True but only if you know how to. Also slim will 99% of the time be less code too.

[rizky05]

but can it do feature x that generates more $$$ ?