5 ms·
Yeah, the problem with jQuery is all that other stuff that nobody uses and backwards compatibility with browsers nobody supports. A "lite" jQuery with the same
by Pxtl 12y ago
Yeah, the problem with jQuery is all that other stuff that nobody uses and backwards compatibility with browsers nobody supports. A "lite" jQuery with the same familiar API but a stripped-down featureset for higher performance and smaller size would be nice.
- K-Wall 12y agoZepto might be what you are looking for. http://zeptojs.com/ http://zeptojs.com/
- abritishguy 12y agoJust use the CDN copy of jquery and it will be cached in the users browser already since so many websites already use it.
- LocalPCGuy 12y agoNot really, the cache-hit benefit is a myth. Too many CDNs, too many versions of jQuery in use, cache's too small... So ..using jQuery via a CDN, depending on which you use you have a 1 in 119, or 1 in 833 chance of the user having a cached copy. http://www.i-technology.net/2013/11/the-myth-of-cdn.html http://www.i-technology.net/2013/11/the-myth-of-cdn.html more data: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/03/18/http-archive-jquery/ http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/03/18/http-archive-jqu... There are valid reasons to use a CDN (get the scripts closer to the end user, offload the data transfer costs to the CDN provider, etc) but it isn't due to the potential for a cache hit.
- chdir 12y ago> you have a 1 in 119, or 1 in 833 chance of the user having a cached copy That statistics has assumptions on what's the most popular jQuery versions being used. It would make sense if there was real data to support that.
- dmethvin 12y agoYou're aware of jQuery custom builds? Leave out what you don't use. It's in the README file.
- johnny22 12y agojquery 2.x removes support for those browsers at least.