Top tip, devs – your Chrome extension doesn't have to suck: 'A few hours can result in big improvements for millions of users'

Matt Zeunert, founder of website monitoring biz DebugBear, has analyzed the performance of the 1,000 most popular Chrome extensions, and found that more than a few of them could be coded better. The London-based developer detailed the Chrome extensions in an essay on Monday with an eye toward page CPU time, page rendering …

[I am the liquor]

That's some news article

When it takes 536MB of memory -- enough to store all 32 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, twice if you use ASCII rather than UTF-16 -- to read a news article, you have to think something's gone wrong somewhere along the line.

[MiguelC]

Re: That's some news article

Not only that, but after starting with 536MB and loading the content blocker extensions it reduced page and subframe memory by as much as 640MB. Must be a really good news article if it ends up using a negative amount of memory

[ecofeco]

Optimized code?

Heresy! Heresy I tell you!

Bummed code is for commies and anarchists!

[Pascal Monett]

Another good reason to use Ublock Origin

And NoScript, obviously. I have no desire nor intent to load 500+MB of useless data every time I view a certain page.

Between those two extensions, my bandwidth requirements apparently drop like stones in a lake.

[Luiz Abdala]

Re: Another good reason to use Ublock Origin

When the Interwebs at large was all dial-up, these bastards wouldn't have even get out of the door with such bloated code!

500MB out of scripts! And all for ads! I'm shocked.

You can watch 15 minutes of netflix with that much memory, I assume! In 4k, no less!

Google homepage is still pretty much their logo, a searchbox, and "im feeling lucky", 20 years on! These guys learned nothing! Didn't anybody notice that, despite G being an ad giant, their homepage is still squeaky clean?

[mishal]

it's very informative.