Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <3382075.QeW2rGUY4L@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:58:39 +0200
User-Agent: KNode/4.10.5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
Face: 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
Subject: Re: Importing multiple .js files
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <C76dnbrbpPTL3vfPnZ2dnUVZ5smdnZ2d@giganews.com> <l4djbm$rpb$1@news.albasani.net> <m2ppqr1x7n.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Oct 2013 00:58:50 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: e5d63cc4.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=oY<2V6Q4\3]V;Ef1`Jk54\ic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQnkgeX?EC@@PJMNQ;63YamTDZm8W4\YJN\YUVHKH;GI^W@\oJa=5C:OXh\h]K8VhO6U
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:21741

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2013-10-25 12:09, Robert Crandal wrote:
> 
> [loading multiple script files with static script elements]
> 
>> It's the most common way. As for "best", that depends on your usage
>> pattern. If the included scripts are static and included on all of your
>> pages, it would be more efficient to concatentate them into one large
>> file and include that instead. Ten <script> elements means ten requests
>> to the server. Requesting one large file is more efficient than
>> requesting ten separate smaller ones.
> 
> IMNSHO there's a lot wrong with that concatenated picture.

You might want to reconsider.
 
> 1) What is 'large'? If you you have five script files between five and
> ten KiB, go ahead. But is it more efficient to load 500 KiB (or more)
> script synchronously before you can render anything at all instead of
> loading what you need in order to render the initial view first and
> lazy-load the rest?

Lazy loading was not considered in the argument; therefore, ignoring that 
possibility: yes, one request is more efficient than several ones.  As for 
“500 KiB (or more)”, see below.
 
> 2) Loading a really large file is usually much less efficient than
> loading several smaller files dynamically in parallel in most (more or
> less) contemporary browsers. This might depend on the precise values of
> 'several' and 'contemporary', of course.

How did you get that idea?  You are also not considering that the number of 
parallel HTTP requests is limited, not only by HTTP/1.1 definitions, and 
that even if parallel download is possible, parallel parsing is not.
 
> 3) If you happen to exclusively develop for UA's that already support
> SPDY, you're just waisting time anyway (or rather, you're being
                    ^^^^^^^^
Big fat time? ;-)

> very productive shooting yourself in your foot).

Although true, the argument is fallacious here.  One cannot assume SPDY 
support.  To quote: “As of April 2013, approximately 1% of all websites 
support SPDY.[30] Some Google services (e.g. Google search, Gmail, and other 
SSL-enabled services) use SPDY when available.[31] Google's ads are also 
served from SPDY-enabled servers.[32]”

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY>
 
> 4) If you change one character in a one MiB file, you have to serve one
> MiB to propagate that change to the client.

Not necessarily.  Besides, he who serves 1 MiB of script code has bigger 
problems than the one at hand; this is a fallacious argument.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.