Yes, we're looking at the same page and I'm not being sarcastic. Despite the images, the total size of the page and its assets is <64KB and it loads extremely quickly.

For comparison, this page and its assets is >160KB and yet it contains a fraction of the content:

http://faculty.salina.k-state.edu/tim/ossg/Introduction/desi...

I'm just saying that and the vanity publishing triggers my skepticism before buying the book and I was looking for opinions.

I think the disparity of reaction between you and me shows how subjective design can be.

You don't know what you're talking about. Chris spotted the developer's unfamiliarity with the web and he was right.

  200ms: http handshake done. let's download this HTML page
  207ms: ok the page is downloaded. let's see what it's all about
  213ms: better look ahead and queue up all the files this page needs. it's a CSS file, a JS file and a bunch of PNGs
  214ms: parses 9 lines. stops parsing.

  217ms: CSS starts downloading!
  220ms: JS starts downloading!
  221ms: one of the PNGs starts downloading!

  nothing happens

  384ms: CSS is done downloading :)
  389ms: CSS is done parsing :)
  405ms: the first PNG is done downloading :)

At this point, I have loaded the all the HTML, CSS and even an image but not a single pixel will be drawn until the JS is done downloading and running. The problem here is not JavaScript, but render-blocking tags. This should be relevant: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4396849/does-the-script-...

Why can't the website just load everything and then, only after showing you the contents of the page, run the necessary JavaScript? Probably because the developer never even thought about all of this. I don't blame him. He's not walking around saying his website is fine handcrafted HTML free of bloat or fluff. He's just making a website about his book.

As a sidenote, you believing that this is a website that "loads extremely quickly" reminds me of Jonathan Blows's "there's generalized insanity about software and people often don't know what makes programs slow" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWv_vUgbmug )

I think it's less of an unfamiliarity and more of an outdated development practise. Plus, completing the entire page in under 750ms (measured in Firefox) is still faster than some other pages out there (reddit: 4s, HN: 1.2s, etc)

I would personally say the website has it's charm, even if it's a bit dated in design.

Oh no, I don't have anything against the website. It worked 100% of the times I tried in less than one second and it responds well to every lighthouse audit for performance except render-blocking tags. Also the books look amazing.

But the point was all about the look of the site and the defense was that it should behave like an old-time simple barebones website because it looks like one. This is not true.

This website waits to parse a JavaScript file that adds like 5 lines to the bottom of the page. It looks and behaves... unconventionally.

Now, I understand how "design is perceptive". I just read the page thinking:

* Cool!, the web page design looks like a manual page.

* It loads fast, and is displayed in full on my phone.

* Nothing fancy about it, and is a good start for something about Operating Systems.

And then I saw comments here! I guess everyone has their thing.

The web should be something simple, after all HTML and HTTP were both designed to transfer text, the former is the document format and the latter the means of transmission. Of course nowadays the web is bloated with javascript, webassembly, webRTC, EME, and many other technologies. Perhaps a good word on design are the following two sites:

http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

It's fun how the authors present valid ideas about the web. Please, don't get offended, instead try to think about the origin of their criticism.

Yes I agree with both those websites... and they're arguing against the website of these books. It has weird graphics, it isn't simple HTML, it's generated by JavaScript.