Hacker News Reader

Comment by unicron | Hacker News Reader

I agree entirely with this approach.

Especially when I consider that we're delivering a 350KiB minified Javascript hit on initial load just for jquery and a load of plugins.

View on HN

Why are you loading 10x times the jQuery filesize in just plugins? Certainly you have a lot more bloat to trim before you should consider eliminating jQuery entirely.

It's a very complicated application with a huge amount of HTTP endpoints. We're talking over a million lines of code.

I mean if you use the CDN jQuery the likelihood of loading jQuery up is fairly low considering its so ambiguous.

Is this usually actually true? It makes a ton of obvious sense, but I've seen numbers thrown around that suggest a surprisingly low number of people actually end up taking advantage of the cache.

It's 100% not true. It's also a pain in the arse if you serve everything over SSL like we do.

To the best of my knowledge, the only reason SSL could cause a problem is if you are specifying the protocol (http:// vs https://). The best way to handle this is to use a protocol-relative URL like "//ajax.googleapis.com/mylibrary". The browser will then infer the correct protocol.

You've obviously never dealt with ancient IE versions and script loading then...

I'm happy to be enlightened if you feel like sharing.

you want the word ubiquitous

https://www.google.com/search?ix=sea&sourceid=chrome&...

Thank you for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com