3 ms·

It's fine if you don't want to call it a waste of bandwidth, but bandwidth is definitely still used because browsers don't share caches between domains https://

It's fine if you don't want to call it a waste of bandwidth, but bandwidth is definitely still used because browsers don't share caches between domains https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-caching-across-sites-and-domains/ https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-ca....

ipaddr 3y ago
Silly point as jQuery is a few kilobytes meanwhile your custom font is a few megs.
- mcpeepants 3y ago
  It’s not a silly point. It’s clarifying a misconception that was long used as an argument for using CDNs to deliver script assets like jQuery, which was being repeated here in context.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I feel like if you are worried about 30kb, you're probably also not using custom fonts; or you're at least not blocking rendering behind them (you're accepting FOUT). It's a reasonable argument to make that minimizing 3rd-party library use is premature optimization for most websites, but if you get to the point where you need that optimization then it is 30kb and it won't be cached (CDN caching is a myth, CDNs are only useful for minimizing server load/response-time they aren't shared between domains) and it will block your initial app logic.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    You're making the assumption that the developer has any input in the matter.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      In which case it makes even less sense for someone to complain about reducing Javascript bloat just because a web font that a developer doesn't control and doesn't have any input over exists. I am sympathetic that worrying about 30kb is overkill for a lot of apps. But if you are in a position where you're really optimizing for speed to the point where even megabytes matter, then those 30kb are not cached and they block page logic from executing until they're downloaded. And that remains true even if there's another performance change that would be higher impact that you're not allowed to make. If anything, being not allowed to reduce asset size for your website would make efficient JS bundling matter more, since it's one of the few resource bundles you'd be allowed to do something about and it would be pulling double-duty to try and slightly cover for the inefficient fetches that you can't change.

ipaddr 3y ago

Silly point as jQuery is a few kilobytes meanwhile your custom font is a few megs.

mcpeepants 3y ago
It’s not a silly point. It’s clarifying a misconception that was long used as an argument for using CDNs to deliver script assets like jQuery, which was being repeated here in context.
danShumway 3y ago
I feel like if you are worried about 30kb, you're probably also not using custom fonts; or you're at least not blocking rendering behind them (you're accepting FOUT). It's a reasonable argument to make that minimizing 3rd-party library use is premature optimization for most websites, but if you get to the point where you need that optimization then it is 30kb and it won't be cached (CDN caching is a myth, CDNs are only useful for minimizing server load/response-time they aren't shared between domains) and it will block your initial app logic.
- TylerE 3y ago
  You're making the assumption that the developer has any input in the matter.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    In which case it makes even less sense for someone to complain about reducing Javascript bloat just because a web font that a developer doesn't control and doesn't have any input over exists. I am sympathetic that worrying about 30kb is overkill for a lot of apps. But if you are in a position where you're really optimizing for speed to the point where even megabytes matter, then those 30kb are not cached and they block page logic from executing until they're downloaded. And that remains true even if there's another performance change that would be higher impact that you're not allowed to make. If anything, being not allowed to reduce asset size for your website would make efficient JS bundling matter more, since it's one of the few resource bundles you'd be allowed to do something about and it would be pulling double-duty to try and slightly cover for the inefficient fetches that you can't change.