The claim about branding being scrubbed makes no sense to me. For example, I found this article via AMP and it was clear to me when I clicked the link and when I landed here that the article is from The Register. So it appears to me that the claim is just blantantly wrong.
I was hoping to learn what AMP is exactly, but I don't think this article explains much (which would have lent it credibility in my eyes). It sort of just jumps right into how bad AMP is.
If the name doesn't lie, I'm having a hard time imagining how faster pages would be a bad thing. As a user, what I've kind of noticed is that AMP pages do not have all the functionality as normal pages. That fact now makes sense to me, now that I have learned from this article (so, yes, I did learn something afterall) that AMP somehow reduces the amount of JavaScript on a page.
BTW, this article is pretty harsh on JavaScript. Don't you know that JavaScript is literally the key ingredient in so-called "Web 2.0"? Would you rather have the old MapQuest with click and wait, or Google maps with drag to pan? Basically, if you want any kind of interactivity beyond clicking on links, you want JavaScript.
Obviously, one can have too much of a good thing. Pages need to be engineered so that they are fast enough that humans don't feel like their waiting, but "the less JavaScript the better" maxim is kind of just, well, ignorant. As with most engineering decisions, you can't make blanket statements like that. Usually it is a case of "you need to apply XYZ JUDICIOUSLY", which means that it is wrong to a) slather it all over the place, and/or b) omit it entirely (which seems to be what "the less the better" is suggesting). Just so with JS.
I used to believe that The Register understood software. Now, I have to decrease my estimate of its tech competence. What a shame!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
