wnsnw

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by wnsnw 13y ago

   Indeed. Downloading the app. A one-time cost. No, I'm not imagining anything - are you?
2. 2.▲
   by wnsnw 13y ago

   Those in that situation should probably start by optimizing the whole "frequently loaded" part... by not frequently loading it. Then they would realize this shaving of a few hundred bytes here and there is, indeed, micro-optimization.
3. 3.▲
   by wnsnw 13y ago

   No, it doesn't. Size of application can correlate strongly with complexity and thus number of queries to the server, but there is nothing that dictates a 1.44MB+ HTML5 application ever even touches a server.
4. 4.▲
   by wnsnw 14y ago

   The suggested options, if I comprehend you properly, are A) Stick with the version you originally programmed against and B) Analyze the overall diff between versions if upgrading. New features/improvements provide an incentive to not choose
5. 5.▲
   by wnsnw 14y ago

   One of my co-workers comes from a strong server side MVC background; dealing with Backbone has confused him greatly as to the terminology and separation of concerns. The break-through explanation I gave him is that Backbone views are DOM el
6. 6.▲
   by wnsnw 14y ago

   Does this mean breaking changes will now go through a deprecation process?
7. 7.▲
   by wnsnw 14y ago

   JQuery Mobile is horrible for mobile applications, IMO. The intrinsic stylesheet, with its rounded corners, box shadows and text shadows results in extremely poor rendering performance in mobile browsers. This can be rectified with work, b