3 ms·
From the Article: "From these preliminary results, I believe that most sites that use jQuery could considerably reduce the amount of JavaScript that they serve
by edanm 16y ago
From the Article:
"From these preliminary results, I believe that most sites that use jQuery could considerably reduce the amount of JavaScript that they serve by using Closure. As always, compiling custom JavaScript for every page must be weighed against caching benefits, though I suspect that the Compiler could find a healthy subset of jQuery that is universal to all pages on a particular site."
This is the interesting point - is there a subset of jQuery that includes enough for most sites? That subset could potentially be served alongside the main jQuery release, and if enough sites use it, it might be worth it.
Otherwise, right now, caching means jQuery bloat isn't too big a problem, I believe.
- evilduck 16y agoSizzle.js maybe? I've tossed CDN jQuery into a couple projects to get Sizzle and jQuery's AJAX wrappers, but usually ignoring the visual effects capabilities of jQuery entirely. Honestly though, I've never done anything at large enough scale that serving something like 14kb instead of 29kb mattered to me or my users.