13 ms·

Thanks for pointing that out. We minify production JS using Closure Compiler but sometimes that leaves room for improvement. There's definitely a tradeoff betw

by moot 13y ago

Thanks for pointing that out. We minify production JS using Closure Compiler but sometimes that leaves room for improvement. There's definitely a tradeoff between inlining JS and small images, but I think in our case it makes more sense to leave them external to leverage browser (and since we use a CDN for static content -- edge) caching. I believe I tried to get ngx_pagespeed up and running when it was announced, but couldn't get it to compile from source. Sometimes (read: often) it sucks to be a FreeBSD user.

Kudos 13y ago
I've found that uglifyjs does about as good a job as Closure Compiler, but waaay faster. Could be a nice speed up in deploy times for you.
- lennel 13y ago
  closure kicks uglify for size when compiling with advanced optimisations.
  - Kudos 13y ago
    I found that the advanced optimisations broke our Javascript when I compared the two a couple of years back. We weren't interested in rewriting our Javascript to make it compatible with the Closure.
    - lennel 13y ago
      The thing that will break your code is this type of notation this['function'] since the compiler can have no idea what renaming should apply. There are aspects of the library that lets you expose public apis. I can really recommend the compiler in AO mode, the type saving is insane (75% reduction in file size) and type checking is sweet
bru 13y ago
It is the second time in this discussion that you mention the downsides of using FreeBSD, and you present it as an historical choice. Do you have upsides as well? What were the criteria that made you pick, 10 years ago, FreeBSD over another OS?