4 ms·
This is aimed at people writing tweet-sized JavaScript for http://140byt.es/ http://140byt.es/ . This is a great resource for learning JavaScript and has some v
by dave1010uk 15y ago
This is aimed at people writing tweet-sized JavaScript for http://140byt.es/ http://140byt.es/ . This is a great resource for learning JavaScript and has some very impressive code behind it. Generally for production sites, though, I'd much rather go with jQuery due to its extensive test suite and bowser support. Between tweet-sized and jQuery-sized JavaScript, there's a whole lot of micro JS scripts / frameworks on http://microjs.com/ http://microjs.com/
I'm currently writing a mobile web app that needs to work over GPRS connections with 30kb/s bandwidth and up to 1s latency. In these cases, shaving off a few bytes to get a page in 1 fewer TCP/IP packets really does make a difference.
- sh1mmer 15y agoGood lord, I'm pretty sure no-one is suggesting you use these in production. In fact it says at the top you shouldn't. If you are writing mobile apps you should check out XUI instead of jQuery. jQuery (even jQ Mobile) is super heavy. XUI is jQ like, but it is by the Nitobi guys (of PhoneGap fame) and they really get mobile and did it right.
- jedschmidt 15y agoA lot of these tricks _are_ used in production, the result of uglifyjs/closure minification of otherwise sane code. This is just a guide for hand-tuning.