3 ms·

A fetch polyfill can be added to a project for ~500 bytes[1] vs jQuery which is ~30kB [2] - or if you were to import just the ajax element from jQuery it would

A fetch polyfill can be added to a project for ~500 bytes[1] vs jQuery which is ~30kB [2] - or if you were to import just the ajax element from jQuery it would be 13kB [3] And by correctly using polyfills only on browsers that don't support native fetch, the majority of your users (chrome/safari/firefox) won't have any extra dependencies by using fetch, whereas jQuery will need to be loaded on every browser that hits your site. [1] https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=unfetch@4.1.0 https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=unfetch@4.1.0 [2] https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=jquery@3.4.1 https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=jquery@3.4.1 [3] https://www.telerik.com/blogs/jquery-using-only-what-you-need https://www.telerik.com/blogs/jquery-using-only-what-you-nee...

goto11 7y ago
Just for comparison, the "favicon" for Hacker News is 7.66 KB. Does the size of jQuery really matter for a typical web site? If you have just a typical size logo, it will dwarf the size of jQuery, never mind if you have some illustrations or photos.
- davidweatherall 7y ago
  I agree there are often more important performance issues on sites, especially with images, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore javascript bundle sizes. In modern sites if javascript doesn't load sites then become non functional, e.g. navs don't work, some SPAs won't work at all. Whereas an image or favicon taking a long time to load shouldn't stop the user from being able to functionally view most of the site.
- charrondev 7y ago
  See https://v8.dev/blog/cost-of-javascript-2019 https://v8.dev/blog/cost-of-javascript-2019 JavaScript has, in a addition to download time, parse and execution time. These are non-negligible on lower end devices. 30k of JS has a far greater impact on the speed of your page than 30k of images.
  - goto11 7y ago
    So what is the parse and execution time for jQuery on a low-end device? Genuine question, I have no idea.
- onion2k 7y ago
  You should optimize images as well as removing unnecessary JS libraries. The point is to not send data the user doesn't need. It doesn't matter if you're using 50MB of images, fonts, video, etc in a page... Adding an extra 30kb you don't need is not good for the user. So don't. (Also don't stick 50MB of assets in a page please.)
  - goto11 7y ago
    Since the jQuery API is more concise than the standard API, you probably save bytes anyway. And if you use a CDN, jQuery will likely already be cached, so it will perform a lot better than writing your own code to present a similar abstraction layer.

goto11 7y ago

Just for comparison, the "favicon" for Hacker News is 7.66 KB. Does the size of jQuery really matter for a typical web site? If you have just a typical size logo, it will dwarf the size of jQuery, never mind if you have some illustrations or photos.

davidweatherall 7y ago
I agree there are often more important performance issues on sites, especially with images, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore javascript bundle sizes. In modern sites if javascript doesn't load sites then become non functional, e.g. navs don't work, some SPAs won't work at all. Whereas an image or favicon taking a long time to load shouldn't stop the user from being able to functionally view most of the site.
charrondev 7y ago
See https://v8.dev/blog/cost-of-javascript-2019 https://v8.dev/blog/cost-of-javascript-2019 JavaScript has, in a addition to download time, parse and execution time. These are non-negligible on lower end devices. 30k of JS has a far greater impact on the speed of your page than 30k of images.
- goto11 7y ago
  So what is the parse and execution time for jQuery on a low-end device? Genuine question, I have no idea.
onion2k 7y ago
You should optimize images as well as removing unnecessary JS libraries. The point is to not send data the user doesn't need. It doesn't matter if you're using 50MB of images, fonts, video, etc in a page... Adding an extra 30kb you don't need is not good for the user. So don't. (Also don't stick 50MB of assets in a page please.)
- goto11 7y ago
  Since the jQuery API is more concise than the standard API, you probably save bytes anyway. And if you use a CDN, jQuery will likely already be cached, so it will perform a lot better than writing your own code to present a similar abstraction layer.