News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on You might not need jQuery. Parent comment

Re:You might not need jQuery by hacknat on Thursday January 30, 2014 @06:14PM (#7154047)
It might be the most cached file on the internet. Pulling jQuery is hardly expensive. Especially if you're pulling it from the google cdn.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by aj on Thursday January 30, 2014 @10:16PM (#7155029)
Caching or CDN does not help in squeezing out JS performance (actual JS execution and not n/w performance)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by hacknat on Friday January 31, 2014 @02:02AM (#7155695)
You think that a page that loads jQuery but doesn't use most of it incurs a performance penalty? I'll grant there are a few initializations and dom checks that jQuery does, but it probably blocks for all of 20ms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by julien_c on Friday January 31, 2014 @03:23AM (#7155874)
...which is significant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by talmand on Friday January 31, 2014 @10:29AM (#7157116)
20ms is significant?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by Dylan16807 on Friday January 31, 2014 @04:20PM (#7159260)
Think of it as a fifth of your time budget spent doing nothing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by hacknat on Friday January 31, 2014 @08:15PM (#7160384)
Most modern browsers are able to paint while loading script files, especially if you put your script files at the bottom of the page, where they belong. So, no, 20ms of parsing, compiling, and a small amount of execution is not a lot of time. Period.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You might not need jQuery by justatdotin on Thursday January 30, 2014 @07:14PM (#7154343)
caching won't help for libraries that want to have a particular version of jquery baked in ...
[ Parent | on HN ]