Reducing WordPress archive weight

[sebastienserre]

Over the year, WordPress archives weight have increased and... I think we can't change this but we can surely do something on old feature which are no more used.
I know the backward compatibility is something really important to the WP leads eyes but we can't continue (IMO)to as 43% of the web to download files always heavier.
Maybe we could work with Core team to determine which functions are no more used and deprecated from years. Removing them will make WordPress liter.
I think to Classic editor, We could move all the classic editor features to the Classic Editor plugin. It would make the archive liter for the most part of the new users.
Features would be always available thanks to the plugin.

[meeware]

Some bvery naive questions to come here - perhaps in asking them I can help define the actual problem we are trying to solve here:
What is the WordPress Archive functionality?
What function do the archive files serve?
What WP features depend upon the archive files?
What has been the historical growth in size of archive files, and what is the projected growth?
What can affect the size of an archive file? (e.g. what configurations and integrations can make an archive file much bigger or smaller?)
What is the actual sustainability impact of this issue?

[sebastienserre]

What is the WordPress Archive functionality?
It contains WordPress Core and allows WordPress installation

What WP features depend upon the archive files?
No archive/ no installation/ no functionality

What has been the historical growth in size of archive files, and what is the projected growth?
Check the attached image. 9.6Mo in 2018 -- 11M0 in 5.0 with Block Editor and Now with Site Editor + Block Editor improvements, WordPress 6.5.4 is 26.2Mo.
Size has tripled.

Sustainability impact
The more an archive is heavy, the more bandwith is used to install and update almost 50% of the website around the web.

[meeware]

Ah ok, so you mean the download file size.

Hmm, I don't think this is a sustainability issue, from an environmental impact at least.

This is based on an assumption that the size of the download file has not grown quickly compared to the rate of increase of average connectivity speeds. As a proportion of an average users data download, it's plummeted.

downloading a 25MB file 4 times a year is not significant when the average website uses 5GB per month.

On this basis i don't believe the impact of reducing the file size would have a measurable impact on energy use/carbon impact. However this is based on the assumptions I am making above, I am open to being convinced otherwise. I'd need to see data that said that reducing the file size was:

a) feasible.
b) affordable (depended on low effort and low impact on WordPress's functionality and ease of installation)
c) that a file of reduced volume would over a period of time have a significant impact in reducing energy usage across the installed base of WordPress.

[DSGND]

@meeware It's more a Core Team issue, but @sebastienserre is right. WordPress can be, and should be lighter. It is literally the “plugin territory” or eco-design philosophy.

Moreover, It's not only a bandwith issue. Keeping these archives still has a cost in terms of hosting (and therefore hardware that the latter requires).

It is not necessarily the most impactful with regard to the daily use of a WordPress, but every moves count (don't forget we're talking about billion websites / users: little actions are in fact huge).

And the simplest to do (delete unused functions / files / archives) are almost more important and priority.