As much as I want to agree with the article I really can&#x27;t. All of the things that people claim as &quot;bloat&quot; are basically necessary for a website to work in a modern fashion...<p>Layout frameworks (eg Bootstrap) tackle the problem of developing a site that&#x27;s readable at resolutions from 320px wide on a two year old phone up to a 5K iMac. That is <i>not</i> a trivial task, especially if you need UI components.<p>Application frameworks (eg Angular) make it <i>much</i> faster, and consequently a nicer experience, to maintain user state, load content, navigate around template driven pages, etc.<p>Media content has grown with resolutions and pixel densities. 10 years ago we were looking at websites on 1280x1024 displays, with no rich media. Today a consumer facing website has retina quality video. That&#x27;s going to impact the page weight.<p>Being wasteful is a minor problem; everyone has fast broadband. Everything is cached at various layers from the browser to the service worker to the CDN to the origin server. Browsers are <i>really</i> fast. With some clever &quot;cutting-edge-even-though-its-been-around-for-years&quot; stuff like http2 you can fetch things in parallel.<p><i>Obviously</i> websites should be optimised. No one should be downloading media or libraries that aren&#x27;t used. Animations should be hardware accelerated. Sites shouldn&#x27;t be running in debug mode (<i>ahem</i>AngularJS<i>ahem</i>). But all in all, what we get in a browser these days is <i>far</i> better, <i>far</i> faster, and <i>far</i> more functional than websites were a decade ago. We could go back to the &quot;works without JS, stateless on the clientside, roundtrip to the server and a whole new page for every click&quot; world I learnt web development in, but I really don&#x27;t want to. It was rubbish.