I just flipped my blog over to AMP, which required essentially no change at all, except adding their cdn'd (but not client-cached) JS and some weirdo attributes here and there.
I run a pretty tight technical ship, so that non-cached JS ends up being more than half the page weight. I don't _really_ care about the additional ~40kb, but I guess I'm not seeing any advantages yet.
AMP != An HTML-subset. If it were, that'd be fine, and I'd basically agree with the article. But AMP seems to also require me using some strange JS from an ad company, which I'm extremely skeptical of.
I run a pretty tight technical ship, so that non-cached JS ends up being more than half the page weight. I don't _really_ care about the additional ~40kb, but I guess I'm not seeing any advantages yet.
AMP != An HTML-subset. If it were, that'd be fine, and I'd basically agree with the article. But AMP seems to also require me using some strange JS from an ad company, which I'm extremely skeptical of.