Comments on: Prototype Size Concerns http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns Alex King, Denver Web Developer Wed, 23 May 2012 22:34:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Firefox Slowdowns With Memory Leaks and Browser Juggling · Stellify http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-63842 Firefox Slowdowns With Memory Leaks and Browser Juggling · Stellify Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:38:50 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-63842 [...] memory leak caused by the infamous prototype.js. I’m not too fond of the said script as it is too large for its own good and wish more people would use moo.fx and its relatives like mootools, which have a tinier version [...] [...] memory leak caused by the infamous prototype.js. I’m not too fond of the said script as it is too large for its own good and wish more people would use moo.fx and its relatives like mootools, which have a tinier version [...]

]]> By: Link Harvest 1.0 | alexking.org http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-55727 Link Harvest 1.0 | alexking.org Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:36:10 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-55727 [...] On the technical side, I’ve recently added special handling support for FeedBurner redirect URLs and the ability to backfill page titles in the event some pages don’t load properly during the initial harvest operation. Like my Share This plugin, Link Harvest also uses Prototype for the reasons I’ve explained previously. [...] [...] On the technical side, I’ve recently added special handling support for FeedBurner redirect URLs and the ability to backfill page titles in the event some pages don’t load properly during the initial harvest operation. Like my Share This plugin, Link Harvest also uses Prototype for the reasons I’ve explained previously. [...]

]]> By: Robert Accettura http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52897 Robert Accettura Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:00:09 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52897 According to research, 4 seconds is considered acceptable. Considering the large number of 56k users on the web... yea. It's ugly. According to research, 4 seconds is considered acceptable. Considering the large number of 56k users on the web… yea. It’s ugly.

]]> By: eas http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52891 eas Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:42:12 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52891 Caching is great, but it doesn't help with the first page view, and first impressions are important. I'm not sure that's a big issue with ShareThis, since the javascript functionality probably isn't going to be used until after the page is loaded. Bad news though for sites that rely on a JS library to render parts of the main page. Caching is great, but it doesn’t help with the first page view, and first impressions are important.

I’m not sure that’s a big issue with ShareThis, since the javascript functionality probably isn’t going to be used until after the page is loaded. Bad news though for sites that rely on a JS library to render parts of the main page.

]]> By: Alex http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52888 Alex Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:39:24 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52888 You're missing the point son. I'm not including Prototype, WordPress is. You’re missing the point son. I’m not including Prototype, WordPress is.

]]> By: Chris http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52882 Chris Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:46:22 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52882 Hmmm... I'm kinda lazy and prefer the small files jQuery.js creates. If you are including Prototype.js, might as well include Moo.fx along with it then... :( Hmmm… I’m kinda lazy and prefer the small files jQuery.js creates.

If you are including Prototype.js, might as well include Moo.fx along with it then… :(

]]> By: Matt http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52846 Matt Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:21:08 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52846 <strong>Megamuch</strong>, France is among the top DSLed country in Europe... we get ADSL for much cheaper than Americans do :p Megamuch, France is among the top DSLed country in Europe… we get ADSL for much cheaper than Americans do :p

]]> By: Alex http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52844 Alex Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:37:28 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52844 I didn't say that: <blockquote>most people are on broadband</blockquote> I said that: <blockquote>folks are more frequently on faster internet connections these days</blockquote> Big difference. I didn’t say that:

most people are on broadband

I said that:

folks are more frequently on faster internet connections these days

Big difference.

]]> By: Megamuch http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52839 Megamuch Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:45:02 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52839 I think you are all mistaken that most people are on broadband these days. Yes, the majority of the US maybe. Most of the Nordic countries in Europe too. But what about Latin America or Spain and France. Believe me when I say that most of the visits I get on my site are still from dial-ups. So to keep my site responsive i try to keep the http requests to a minimum and if a feature is nice but 20k extra in size I will not add it, simply because the page would load to slow for a large part of my visitors. my 2 cnts. I think you are all mistaken that most people are on broadband these days. Yes, the majority of the US maybe. Most of the Nordic countries in Europe too.

But what about Latin America or Spain and France. Believe me when I say that most of the visits I get on my site are still from dial-ups.

So to keep my site responsive i try to keep the http requests to a minimum and if a feature is nice but 20k extra in size I will not add it, simply because the page would load to slow for a large part of my visitors.

my 2 cnts.

]]> By: Joe http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52838 Joe Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:42:01 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52838 <b>Robert</b>, for IIS, I find that setting compression level to 9 is (subjectively) hardly noticable. 9 produces 3: or 4:1 compression on text files. I agree that combining files for fewer requests is better, but I think that shouldn't matter much on most servers because of HTTP-Keep-Alive. Am I wrong here? <b>Ozh</b> and <b>Vinny</b>, keeping multiple copies - compressed/uncompressed of the dozens of .js, .css, .html files is a pain in the @ss. I'd rather take the risk of IE problem. However, prototype is common, so if you're going to bundle it in WP or anywhere else, at least ship a trimmed version. Of course, as Alex says, caching plays a huge role. I agree with <b>iolare</b> and suppose it would be cool if there were central servers to cache common scripts, but maybe we're dreaming. BTW Alex, love the "new" sticker. How's about a preview comment feature? :P Oh, back on topic - bundle prototype, trim it, and also use gzip. IMHO. Robert, for IIS, I find that setting compression level to 9 is (subjectively) hardly noticable. 9 produces 3: or 4:1 compression on text files.

I agree that combining files for fewer requests is better, but I think that shouldn’t matter much on most servers because of HTTP-Keep-Alive. Am I wrong here?

Ozh and Vinny, keeping multiple copies – compressed/uncompressed of the dozens of .js, .css, .html files is a pain in the @ss. I’d rather take the risk of IE problem. However, prototype is common, so if you’re going to bundle it in WP or anywhere else, at least ship a trimmed version.

Of course, as Alex says, caching plays a huge role. I agree with iolare and suppose it would be cool if there were central servers to cache common scripts, but maybe we’re dreaming.

BTW Alex, love the “new” sticker. How’s about a preview comment feature? :P

Oh, back on topic – bundle prototype, trim it, and also use gzip. IMHO.

]]> By: Alex http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52832 Alex Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:18:14 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52832 I think you may have overlooked the caching portion of the discussion above. I think you may have overlooked the caching portion of the discussion above.

]]> By: Robert Accettura http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52831 Robert Accettura Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:15:22 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52831 One of the key arguments against mod_gzip is simply CPU. It's rather cycle expensive to compress everything. I personally just do pages, not CSS or JS. That said, I just modified my comments to not use prototype.js for now. I was able to cut out 2 http requests in the mod and file size is down ~ 65k. The HTTP requests kill. Doesn't matter how much bandwidth you have, http requests harm performance. I'd personally like to see a wordpress API for plugins to include their css/js into main files, rather than each add their own. Yes, that would require your style.css and scripts.js to be dynamic, but it would stop the insanity of 15 JS and 12 CSS files for each blog. Before images some sites are hitting 20+ requests. And that's not even the worst of them. Don't forget the impact this has on web server performance as well. IMHO it's a design flaw for each to include their own JS/CSS. One of the key arguments against mod_gzip is simply CPU. It’s rather cycle expensive to compress everything. I personally just do pages, not CSS or JS.

That said, I just modified my comments to not use prototype.js for now. I was able to cut out 2 http requests in the mod and file size is down ~ 65k.

The HTTP requests kill. Doesn’t matter how much bandwidth you have, http requests harm performance.

I’d personally like to see a wordpress API for plugins to include their css/js into main files, rather than each add their own. Yes, that would require your style.css and scripts.js to be dynamic, but it would stop the insanity of 15 JS and 12 CSS files for each blog. Before images some sites are hitting 20+ requests. And that’s not even the worst of them.

Don’t forget the impact this has on web server performance as well.

IMHO it’s a design flaw for each to include their own JS/CSS.

]]> By: iolaire http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52826 iolaire Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:56:06 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52826 Has it ever been discussed to have a centralized public version of key open source libraries like prototype.js? Could it benefit the world if unmodified stock libraries were served from a centralized server network? The concept being that many sites would use the same file, so each time you need that file most likely it would have been downloaded by a previous site. Has it ever been discussed to have a centralized public version of key open source libraries like prototype.js? Could it benefit the world if unmodified stock libraries were served from a centralized server network?

The concept being that many sites would use the same file, so each time you need that file most likely it would have been downloaded by a previous site.

]]> By: Ozh http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52823 Ozh Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:51:49 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52823 I agree with the whole concept of using a bundled prototype. However gzipping <em>might</em> be a bad idea, since MSIE sometimes <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823386&Product=ie600">incorrectly decompress</a> the requested file. I'd rather trim blanks, comments etc... which can greatly reduce the file size too. I agree with the whole concept of using a bundled prototype. However gzipping might be a bad idea, since MSIE sometimes incorrectly decompress the requested file. I’d rather trim blanks, comments etc… which can greatly reduce the file size too.

]]> By: Joe http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52821 Joe Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:47:49 +0000 http://alexking.org/blog/2006/11/13/prototype-size-concerns#comment-52821 I'm surprised how many times I tell people this, but enabling gzip at the server level only takes a few minutes. You can use it for .js, .html and pretty much anything that isn't already compressed (well, no point in recompressing gif files anyway :-)) This way you don't have to continually compress individual files and it works better than the gzip option in wordpress, which causes problems with some plug-ins. I did a <a href="http://www.vibetechnology.com/vt/2006/09/22/triple-website-performance-with-gzip/">how-to on this for IIS6</a>, for any interested. I’m surprised how many times I tell people this, but enabling gzip at the server level only takes a few minutes. You can use it for .js, .html and pretty much anything that isn’t already compressed (well, no point in recompressing gif files anyway :-) )

This way you don’t have to continually compress individual files and it works better than the gzip option in wordpress, which causes problems with some plug-ins.

I did a how-to on this for IIS6, for any interested.

]]>