It's like telling da Vinci, at the moment of the reveal of the Mona Lisa, he should have used more paint so it can last 100k years instead of only 98k years. We are not dealing with a 10MB website with seconds long loading time and screaming for smaller images.
As far as HN comments go, this is way better than the HN traditional "Why should I use this?" or the always popular "I'm tired of new libraries coming out, your project is literally cancer".
Someone put time on giving actual technical feedback for improvement. There's lots of developers here. This might even get people interested in contributing to the project.
It seems a fair discussion point, even if you don’t agree that the payoff is worth the effort.
I don’t read it as a negative thing, and for me <500kB seems reasonable. Page size is an aspect of design – even if many websites are suffering far greater needless bloat than this one.
Performance is a feature, or at least it should be, of any good design.
Of course it might be a very low priority feature, so it would be valid to close any issue reports as "WONTFIX" if the devs have no time or feel they are better spending their time on other matters, especially if people on slow connections are not expected to be a significant part of the target audience, but commenting on potential performance issues is perfectly valid when discussing a site (re)design IMO.
