What I was implying was, minification only adds - at best - an additional %20 reduction in file size after gzip (ie which is more like 40%-60% reduction). Assum

What I was implying was, minification only adds - at best - an additional %20 reduction in file size after gzip (ie which is more like 40%-60% reduction). Assuming practices #1 and #3 are followed, scripts should remain relatively small and the added benefit of minification would be negligible. Unless the end goal is obfuscation, I don't see the value of adding additional complexity to the development process for what amounts to a micro-optimization. Plus - from a user perspective - if a site's scripting fails, I'd like to see developers maintain the ability to view the source in production and determine why. In an unrelated note, I'd also like to see ES/CSS updated with new features that render the most common transpiled languages obsolete. I think transpiling is an awesome approach for testing language improvements and possibly building DSLs but supporting them in the long-term (ex tooling, backward compatibility) doesn't make sense. Speaking from the perspective of a library author/contributor. Developing, testing, and stabilizing a widely-used codebase over the long term is hard. Removing additional steps and reducing complexity makes life a bit easier.