My point was that "saving 25 GiB" is way below anything they can possibly care about. How much traffic does 4chan handle in a single hour? I think it's pretty safe to assume that 25 GiB is significantly lower than one standard deviation of their monthly traffic, so cutting costs with it is also not feasible.
Ok, so let's assume you are right. Did he make the wrong choice? The shorter name seems strictly better to me- whether we feel it is trivially better, it saves traffic and the domain name has lost no information.
If he reworked old code just to save 50 bytes, that would probably be a mistake, but it sounds like the work was being done anyway and he had the choice to save 50 bytes OR use a longer domain name.
> If he reworked old code just to save 50 bytes, that would probably be a mistake, but it sounds like the work was being done anyway and he had the choice to save 50 bytes OR use a longer domain name.
Basically this. I thought it was an interesting side benefit that came at no additional cost to the main benefit of greatly reducing request overhead for static resources.
