Then you wonder, couldn't it have been simpler for a white page, links above, an Image, a form field and links below.

What's the excess codes for Image how you would have achieved an exact google.com homepage.

Google is a search engine and so it makes sense that it be as simple as possible, so as to reduce the overhead on their servers. That doesn't mean, unless I am misreading you, that every site out there should be as simple-looking.

@poster i think yawa-tide didnt really get you. Yawa he meant the output of the page from mere looking should be simple on html source. That is just a image tag carrying the logo, an input box carrying the search and some few links carrying the footer privacy and so. But when the code is viewed it happens not to be simple has he thought.

Well poster i think you cant really say

Ymodulus, that's exactly my point.

Yawa, you'll have to look at the source codes from www.google.com to understand what I mean. The source codes could have been simpler, just as Ymodulus described.

What i see is loads of javascript codes. Infact, the content i'm seeing is little.

Looks more like code obfuscation to me.

The more you look, the less you see

Those javascript codes you see do a lot of things:
1. They test the speed of your internet connection.
2. They implement ajax to search when the connection is good.
3. Saves you stress of refreshing the page to get contents.
4. Allows updating of the page without reloading.
5. Also floats that their black toolbar on the page.

Meanwhile, there is some degree of fallback for no-javascript. A very decent failback mechanism.

And more. All these things you can implement them with enough javascript knowlege. It is not
everything that is JQUERY/MOOTOOLs. This is why you need to learn real javascript.

^^ +100

Thanks amigo. I once wanted to make my sites like this - but SEO is a very big problem. You can achieve good SEO but it is very difficult.

I have not really optimized my sites actively for SEO. But if you enter into google - all first page will be me.

Hopefully my last post on this thread

It IS code obfuscation:

Code compression means lines are stripped, etc but the underlying code is still readable. When I view the source and see something like this:
c.push(d(f))}}E(c.join("")}}

That smacks of obfuscation to me buddy - as in, you couldn't decipher what the code is doing, based on what you see.

Okay, I will give you 50% since the code has not only been obfuscated but compressed as well.

The end

^^^Well, since i cant see what the code is doing - why bother to give me mark at all? Just give me odo - make i kuku no say i be olodo-rabata!

But seriously, do we need  to read a code line for line to know what it is doing? Nah, i dont think so. That means i got to open their server and
database be dat na.

We can all see it is obfuscated and compressed. Even jquery.min is obfuscated and compressed, that is no new thing. But i correctly analysed
some of the functions based on observations and testings - and as a programmer - using deductive + intuitive reasoning as well.

Well. . . . i did not try to unofuscate it - i have already listed out some of the reasons i felt the code is like that.

I am flabbergasted. . .

Now I'm totally confused. Don't blame me, just a PHP developer.

;d ;d ;d

There are really a lot going on there.

This is mostly a client-sided stuff sha. Add some ajax to it. But i really love the way they do those speed tests and so change the
functionality of a page.
If your internet was fast at one moment, then the ajaxified search works. If speed drops, it switches to regular submit with reloading.
And all this is activated manually. If javascript is turned off - it backflips easily - and still does not fail. Fantastica.

4 more info check http://vibe.waptools.net

@Omotodun

Dude, It's both obfuscated and compressed. To be precise the JavaScript is minified.

YUI Compressor does that and offers compression and obfuscation. Most people use that.

Most of it is difficult to[i] read[/i], it's poorly indented and makes use of ridiculous variable names which make the source poorly readable. That on its on own is obfuscation bro.

It looks like jQuery's source minified. http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.2/jquery.min.js

dat is what i was saying above. Thanks guy.

Based on the code snippet I pasted here, it is obfuscated. Based on wat omo pajavascript:void(0);sted, it is compressed.

I hereby declare the game 1-1. As always, naija no dey ever carry last. Highest na draw

Prior to August of this year, I always looked down upon Web developers as inferior

Never judge a book by its cover buddy.  Also, until you have seen them all and they all act alike, don't make stereotypical, judgmental statements. Some people choose to do certain things not because they don't know any better but because they have a phD degree: Passion, Hunger and Drive and believe that though it may not be a noble path, but it is a good one, nonetheless

Happy coding!

Time will tell 

By the way, there are people in my locale making 5 figures (USD) writing "common" html.

Something to think about, as we bring this thread to a close

*dhtml:

dat is what i was saying above. Thanks guy.

Yup. Google likes too much JS. They don't wan't any back-end pressure at all. They just dump everything to your browser to do all the work.