Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't use "Mapstraction" the amount of Javascript to see OSM through Mapstraction is about 20 greater than Google Maps. Visitors to your site will definitely experience longer loading times.

View on HN

20 times is an exaggeration.

Yes, using an abstraction layer will of course add some size, but once you gzip and have the client cache it, it's negligible.

Even if bandwidth is the only cost to you, it doesn't mean that client CPU usage by JavaScript can be safely ignored, as it can create a less than optimal experience for customers.

Agreed. This should be obvious. It's in the name: mapSTRACTION. Another layer.

Surely one can a) minify b) remove 'unwanted' services from the file in order to speed things up?

Browsers still have to interpret the JS—I'd wager that in these situation performance (especially on less optimised JS engines) is CPU bound, not IO bound

Actually with mapstraction v2 you load only the libraries you need by default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com