> Any reason why we're looking at uncompressed data? Some of the listed negative examples easily beat GMaps 1.5mb when compressed. Because for a single page lo

> Any reason why we're looking at uncompressed data? Some of the listed negative examples easily beat GMaps 1.5mb when compressed. Because for a single page load, decompressing and using the scripts takes time, RAM space, disk space (more scratch space used as more RAM gets used), and power (battery drain from continually executing scripts). Caching can prevent the power and time costs of downloading and decompressing, but not the costs of using. My personal rule of thumb is: the bigger the uncompressed Javascript load, the more code the CPU continually executes as I move my mouse, press any key, scroll, etc. I would be willing to give up a bit of time efficiency for a bit of power efficiency. I'm also willing to give up prettiness for staticness, except where CSS can stand in for JS. Or maybe I'm staring at a scapegoat when the actual/bigger problem is sites which download more files (latent bloat and horrendously bad for archival) when I perform actions other than clicking to different pages corresponding to different URLs. (Please don't have Javascript make different "pages" show up with the same URL in the address bar. That's really bad for archival as well.) Tangent: Another rule of thumb I have: the bigger the uncompressed Javascript load, the less likely the archived version of the site will work properly.