What does that video possibly prove? That if you compare completely different sites, you can't use reductionist measures of individual attributes to compare speed? Is there anyone on HN who actually doesn't already know that? This is asking which of a collection of mystery vehicles is the fastest by engine size, and then revealing that one is a dump truck, one a train, and the other a motorcycle, with results that should surprise no one.
The only people who would possibly be interested in this project are people who are attempting to optimize the experience their app provides, presumably in a holistic fashion. It is pretty much part and parcel that such a person is going to minimize elements, CSS, images, and scripts in such a case, and aren't simply going to replace jQuery with something like this and assumes that it will make everything fast.
The reality of something like jQuery, like Ruby on Rails or MongoDB, is if you start with it you'll likely be stuck with it. You can't simply make a full site and run it through the profiler and swap out components without significant rewriting.
> Is there anyone on HN who actually doesn't already know that?
I see a lot of discussion here based on the premise that this smaller script will make a big difference in overall page load time. It's why the audience in that video was leaning towards the site with the most JavaScript being the slowest. The first benefit listed on the minified.js page is "Minified is smaller!" so exactly what benefits does "smaller" imply?
> The only people who would possibly be interested in this project are people who are attempting to optimize the experience their app provides, presumably in a holistic fashion.
I agree, and creating your own homebrew framework for a large project in a holistic fashion has its own pitfalls. Especially if you've never done it before.
Unless you're being targeted as a potential customer or a member of the audience, your mobile performance is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the majority of the devices being used to access sites don't have the performance of mid-high end models.
The common phone is a sub-$100 Nokia or nothing at all?
Even in the US there's something like 10% of people with no cell phone at all, and 50% with "smartphones" which is a very broad spectrum ranging from crap to significant household purchases before considering "data plans" are optional and also range from crap to good.
Even non-phone connection quality can be terrible - I rarely find myself on public or hotel wifi with actually good connections. The difference between 200kb of JavaScript and 10kb can often be measured in seconds.
I actually believe that I did. I understood the point you were making, and I'm pointing out that while your devices don't have that constraint, others may, depending on your target audience.
There are endlessly discussions on here whether to go with an app or web, with many favouring the app angle because of endemic performance issues on the web when you're running on an ultra-low power mobile device.
The web is often death by a thousand cuts. Every decision by itself may seem small, but the end result is an unenjoyable, inefficient, battery-sucking result that leads people to abandon the web.
What does that video possibly prove? That if you compare completely different sites, you can't use reductionist measures of individual attributes to compare speed? Is there anyone on HN who actually doesn't already know that? This is asking which of a collection of mystery vehicles is the fastest by engine size, and then revealing that one is a dump truck, one a train, and the other a motorcycle, with results that should surprise no one.
The only people who would possibly be interested in this project are people who are attempting to optimize the experience their app provides, presumably in a holistic fashion. It is pretty much part and parcel that such a person is going to minimize elements, CSS, images, and scripts in such a case, and aren't simply going to replace jQuery with something like this and assumes that it will make everything fast.
The reality of something like jQuery, like Ruby on Rails or MongoDB, is if you start with it you'll likely be stuck with it. You can't simply make a full site and run it through the profiler and swap out components without significant rewriting.