This discussion started because you couldn't be bothered to put the schedule in a web friendly format that would have taken 8 seconds. Would it have been perfect, probably not, but that is what translators, exporters, compilers, etc. do. That is my point.
What you put in one end may not match what comes out the other side and is bound to be less than optimal. Heck, since you can't control the "interpreter" or browser that "runs" the "binary" that is the HTML, you have no prayer of ensuring reliable output without quite a bit of testing. And by the way, I retract my earlier concession. HTML is still code, not a "binary". HTML is an interpreted language with browsers being the interpreter.
Bloat is bloat, whether it is created by you choosing to put remarks in your hand coded HTML or it is created by the word HTML export translator.
OMG. I deal with developers using modern tools every day. I am using generic terms. What would you prefer I call the tool that creates your binaries? A "Studio", "Project builder"? Whatever....
Oooh, you can use big acronyms like SOAP, and XML... I architect multi-platform, mutli-site, highly available, highly integrated systems using modern and legacy systems / protocols, N tier applications, middleware, etc... Don't even start throwing around acronyms with me.
I apologize for not placing a "Visual" in front of my C# reference. I don't write code for a living, but work with people who do every day and often have to explain how things really work. I have been moving bits since the 8080 processor and before, so please don't presume to tell me how computers work.
Also, if you don't have to tell your "Studio/Bulder" how to find 3rd party and external libraries, you are either writing very focused "native" applications, or having very little interaction with other diverse systems. But again, my point is made. You have absolutely no visibility to the code you are calling, and have no clue to what extent it is bloated relative to your actual application requirements. How much memory is used, or how many extra branches are taken in that external code in the final binary?
How is that different than the bloat that Word, Front page, etc. add to HTML?
I work with modern developers who have no clue how their application actually executes on a machine, or how jobs, threads, etc impact the system the code is executing on much less other dependent systems.
Windows is compiled, and so is LINUX, why is one faster for some applications vs. the other. Must be compiler optimization.
Word is a terrible tool to create HTML, but an average user like Dave Deborde can click save to web page, and get results they can live with, especially on MS browsers in seconds. Why should they learn DreamWeaver or even Front Page, etc. if they don't need to?
And last but not least, assembly code only needs to be assembled into machine code by an assembler. There is a 1 to 1 not open to interpretation mapping from assembly into machine code. It is not compiled.