3 ms·

So how is that different from any other CDN? CDNJS is actually orders of magnitude more likely to have a cache hit than this new offering.

falsedan 7y ago
> So how is that different from any other CDN? I struggled to see the value-add, I think it does automatic bundling & inserts polyfills based on UA strings. The whole pika project looks like a rewrite/alternative to the npm servers, kind of like MetaCPAN is for perl's CPAN+search.cpan.org I struggled because the landing page & about were very light on the project/product's overview, too details-focused for me and I suppose anyone else who wasn't already aware of it.
manigandham 7y ago
It describes it in the first paragraph. It acts as a proxy to serve ESM JS files (for any top-level package that's already in ESM syntax) that modern browsers can use natively without a build/transpile step. Looks like they recently added automatic polyfills for older browsers too. CDNJS is just a standard CDN that serves up files as they're packaged, but if you want a high hit-ratio then https://jsDelivr.com https://jsDelivr.com has the most marketshare currently, and more features.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  "CDNJS" returns 5X more results in Google compared to "jsDelivr", so you're more likely to get a cache hit. Are you sure it has the most marketshare?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    A google search for the name has nothing to do with network coverage and volume of the CDN traffic. CDNJS is only using Cloudflare, JsDelivr has a bigger network with more partners and support for both npm and github.
    - bufferoverflow 7y ago
      Google search tells you how popular it is, and that's what matters when getting a cache hit. Network coverage doesn't affect that. You can also try Google Trends, which tells you CDNJS is around twice as popular: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=CDNJS,jsdelivr https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=CDNJS,jsde...
      - IanCal 7y ago
        I think you need to treat "commonly searched" and "commonly hit by users while browsing" very differently. It's not popularity of searching or articles written about a CDN that determines the cache hits.
      - penagwin 7y ago
        Google search can only tell you how popular something is to search and how much content there is about it. They aren't going to be showing you a website just because there's a src="cdn.example.com" in the code, only if it's in the text. To actually know then you either need them to report their # of users and trust them, or scrape tons of websites and check their source for which CDN they use.
        bufferoverflow 7y ago
        You can also search Github. CDNJS: 18M references jsDelivr: 1M references I showed you 3 different sources that prove CDNJS is much more popular. You showed zero so far.
        IanCal 7y ago
        You may be right that CDNJS is more likely to result in cache hits, it's just that none of these figures actually help in finding out the answer. CDNJS being in 1000 small github blogs could easily be less impactful than a single large website using jsDelivr. We have no idea if the github projects are even used. Again, it may well be the case that it's better in this way, but these figures show nothing really either way. Here's a bit of an attempt at looking more at it, though I don't know their methodology: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-jsdelivr/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-jsdelivr/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-cdnjs/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-cdnjs/all/all Ones that jump out there are dailymail and yelp, depending on your expected users you might expect one or the other does better for you.

falsedan 7y ago

> So how is that different from any other CDN? I struggled to see the value-add, I think it does automatic bundling & inserts polyfills based on UA strings. The whole pika project looks like a rewrite/alternative to the npm servers, kind of like MetaCPAN is for perl's CPAN+search.cpan.org I struggled because the landing page & about were very light on the project/product's overview, too details-focused for me and I suppose anyone else who wasn't already aware of it.

manigandham 7y ago

It describes it in the first paragraph. It acts as a proxy to serve ESM JS files (for any top-level package that's already in ESM syntax) that modern browsers can use natively without a build/transpile step. Looks like they recently added automatic polyfills for older browsers too. CDNJS is just a standard CDN that serves up files as they're packaged, but if you want a high hit-ratio then https://jsDelivr.com https://jsDelivr.com has the most marketshare currently, and more features.

bufferoverflow 7y ago
"CDNJS" returns 5X more results in Google compared to "jsDelivr", so you're more likely to get a cache hit. Are you sure it has the most marketshare?
- manigandham 7y ago
  A google search for the name has nothing to do with network coverage and volume of the CDN traffic. CDNJS is only using Cloudflare, JsDelivr has a bigger network with more partners and support for both npm and github.
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    Google search tells you how popular it is, and that's what matters when getting a cache hit. Network coverage doesn't affect that. You can also try Google Trends, which tells you CDNJS is around twice as popular: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=CDNJS,jsdelivr https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=CDNJS,jsde...
    - IanCal 7y ago
      I think you need to treat "commonly searched" and "commonly hit by users while browsing" very differently. It's not popularity of searching or articles written about a CDN that determines the cache hits.
    - penagwin 7y ago
      Google search can only tell you how popular something is to search and how much content there is about it. They aren't going to be showing you a website just because there's a src="cdn.example.com" in the code, only if it's in the text. To actually know then you either need them to report their # of users and trust them, or scrape tons of websites and check their source for which CDN they use.
      - bufferoverflow 7y ago
        You can also search Github. CDNJS: 18M references jsDelivr: 1M references I showed you 3 different sources that prove CDNJS is much more popular. You showed zero so far.
        IanCal 7y ago
        You may be right that CDNJS is more likely to result in cache hits, it's just that none of these figures actually help in finding out the answer. CDNJS being in 1000 small github blogs could easily be less impactful than a single large website using jsDelivr. We have no idea if the github projects are even used. Again, it may well be the case that it's better in this way, but these figures show nothing really either way. Here's a bit of an attempt at looking more at it, though I don't know their methodology: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-jsdelivr/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-jsdelivr/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-cdnjs/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cd-cdnjs/all/all Ones that jump out there are dailymail and yelp, depending on your expected users you might expect one or the other does better for you.