5 ms·
So you think they should inject a third-party dependency instead of just some inline js? And that would make it more elegant?
by recursive 14y ago
So you think they should inject a third-party dependency instead of just some inline js? And that would make it more elegant?
- mschuster91 14y agoThey could just inject it inline. No problem there. The whole document.write block 27-51 (possibly the CSS-block too, but I'm not sure about this) could be written far more elegant in jQuery. But the real saving is that "drag and drop" code - jQuery would abstract all that isIE/isNS crap from them.
- j79 14y agoOh man, I thought you were being sarcastic earlier!? ...unless you're still being sarcastic?
- mistercow 14y agoThe block of code they injected here was 7.9 KB (3.7 KB gzipped). jQuery is 93 KB (33 KB gzipped). So no, I don't think that would have been more elegant. Injecting anything into users' pages without permission is insane. Injecting a huge library like jQuery would be even more insane.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Aqueous 14y agoAs long as you're already injecting something, why not go all the way?
- dmak 14y agoWasted resources. The difference in size between the two (using the numbers from the above comment) is 85.1 KB. Now think of all the customers Comcast has and you will see quickly the difference it makes with a few KB.