Author Topic: Farnell website is very slow in UK...why?  (Read 4313 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12069
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: Farnell website is very slow in UK...why?
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2018, 08:38:02 pm »
I've had more luck with Farnell, than RS. The problem I have with the latter is they don't seem to stock things and their search engine can't be set to omit items which they don't have in stock. It's very frustrating to wander through result, after result, only to find that nothing is in stock. It seems to be worse with things such as connectors and cases, than electronic components.
Yes, that's my no.1 complaint about RS too. 20 search results and you have to open the page for each one to see if it's in stock.
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
The following users thanked this post: treez

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 944
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Farnell website is very slow in UK...why?
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2018, 09:48:13 pm »
Frankly, the whole technology behind websites is one blazes of a mess.  It needs a total overhaul. Part of the problem is that the original HTML markup was based on one type of syntax, but coders of added  features like CSS, SQL, XML and JS knew better than that (of course) and didn't conform to that syntax, instead each using their own insular approach. We even have crackpot situations like some parameters being case insensitive and others having to be written in CamelCase, in the same statement. Even the CamelCase is not consistent in its capitalization. Not to mention some values being counted from one, others from zero, in the same statement.

Slow or no, it's a wonder it works at all.   :palm:

Basically, when all this was being developed the standards bodies were way too lenient with coders who thought they knew better than to stick to existing standards. They should have laid it on the line, that syntax must be consistent with existing features, or the code gets rejected. 

This is really why CMS such as Wordpress are so popular. A background program does the work of translating your requirements into the mess that is Web code. Unfortunately they also add yet another layer of obfuscation and bloat to the whole process, making sites even slower to load.   

Then again, don't even get me started on the oxymoron that is Web security. Why the hell do we use a database which allows malicious commands to be inserted into user-submitted data, when others minus this flaw have existed for decades? Another monumentally stupid decision which the standards guys should have pounced on rightaway and stopped.

The following users thanked this post: MK14, treez

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo