3 ms·
"The worst part is that if I'd be allowed to lazy load some of the images and make a few small other optimizations, I would've shaved off enough Kb's to load mu
by boubiyeah 10y ago
"The worst part is that if I'd be allowed to lazy load some of the images and make a few small other optimizations, I would've shaved off enough Kb's to load multiple version of jQuery..."
We really need to stop comparing the size of JS and images. Images do not block the app while JS often block it in many ways: download, parsing, slow executing at first (JIT), GC pauses.
It's truly apples and oranges.
- blauditore 10y agoAlso, hard limits on download size seem silly to me. Either it's worth spending those couple kb for jQuery or it's not, but you shouldn't need to compensate for it by reducing payload in other places.