3 ms·
The cool part about that is maybe they could precompile stuff like prototype, jquery, etc and include it with chrome since majority of websites use some kind of
by catch23 18y ago
The cool part about that is maybe they could precompile stuff like prototype, jquery, etc and include it with chrome since majority of websites use some kind of framework. All it would have to do is run a checksum on the prototype js file and if it matches, load a precompiled version.
Then again, it probably wouldn't help too much, since most websites employ fancy packaging tricks to speed up javascript file load times.
- davidw 18y agoIt would also be an incentive to stick with an older version of something. I think I prefer the "publicly hosted on a very highly available site" idea, but it's tough finding someone to do that.
- stcredzero 18y agoHosting app images might become a business like hosting images and other media is currently a business. But hopefully, apps won't get that bloated.
- litewulf 18y agoOr more generally... I've been hearing about these things called caches... Maybe they should "cache" this data for the most common files. Voila, no favoritism, only sweet sweet performance. (At the cost of having some sort of frequency table.) And cache eviction and all that is pretty well understood too...
- eggnet 18y agoBut you don't know that url A and url B in fact point to the same file until after the file has been downloaded. At that point, why not just load the javascript instead of performing an md5 checksum.
- litewulf 18y agoBecause parsing isn't free. In addition, one interesting optimization it opens up is something akin to the JVM where performance improves as profiling of code is done. Imagine if every site that used a Javascript library served to improve the performance of that library for all future invocations. That would be nifty.