4 ms·
It seems like their answer to this question is "no", but that's hard to understand when I see this quote from the same article: > But let’s get back to the num
by sjs382 13y ago
It seems like their answer to this question is "no", but that's hard to understand when I see this quote from the same article:
> But let’s get back to the numbers. Per the data above, a typical user on an average device and network will take ~50ms to download jQuery and another ~250ms to parse it.
An average delay of 300ms is simply unacceptable. I have a hard time believing that 50ms to download jQuery is average, so I assume that the author isn't including round-trip time.
To be fair, this is also from the article:
> And in my opinion, the painfully slow parsing and interpretation of scripts on mobile browsers – particularly older Android ones – is the only compelling reason to prefer tiny JavaScript libraries.
It's the author's opinion that this is the only compelling reason, but it is a VERY compelling reason.
- youngtaff 13y agoI don't think the author understands how TCP works - the claim that jQuery takes "229ms to download on the worst mobile networks (1Mbsp)" completely ignores latency and TCP slow-start. Even with a initial congestion window of 10 segments there's going to be at least two round trips, if the window is smaller then it's going to me more. Using devtools on my office network connection it takes 1.3s to download jQuery from the site with the post