JavaScript loader comparison(spreadsheets.google.com)
spreadsheets.google.com
JavaScript loader comparison
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aqln2akPWiMIdERkY3J2OXdOUVJDTkNSQ2ZsV3hoWVE#gid=0
6 comments
while letting anyone with a link view it is not a bad idea, giving anyone editing rights was certainly not a good one :)
Agreed. It works fine for Wikis, which allow you to revert trivially to previous versions.
But a vandal could easily just delete the contents of this and save it, leaving no trace.
But a vandal could easily just delete the contents of this and save it, leaving no trace.
Umm, actually you can revert to previous versions.
Google docs saves revisions of every edit: File -> Show Revision History (Could be slightly different, because i translated them from my localized google docs)
Google docs saves revisions of every edit: File -> Show Revision History (Could be slightly different, because i translated them from my localized google docs)
Aaah, thanks! I hadn't realised that.
It's good to see lots of script loaders. It's interesting that CommonJS modules aren't more widely supported in that list of loaders. Here are some more CommonJS loaders:
http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS#Implementations
ECMAScript modules can't come soon enough.
http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#modules
http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS#Implementations
ECMAScript modules can't come soon enough.
http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#modules
Is there really an advantage of loaders over using something like sprockets and then minifying that single script file?
It depends on what you're working on and how often it changes. If you have 8 JS files that are one single script in production, every time you change anything in any script, the user has to re-download the whole thing. If the scripts remain separate in production a change to one does not invalidate the cached versions of the others, so they don't have to be re-downloaded.
Again it depends on the sizes of the files and how often they change, but ideally you could define your core JS that would be loaded first, and then asynchronously load the rest of the JS that might not be needed, or at least not be needed on the initial page load.
Again it depends on the sizes of the files and how often they change, but ideally you could define your core JS that would be loaded first, and then asynchronously load the rest of the JS that might not be needed, or at least not be needed on the initial page load.
Thanks.
Are these compatible with the scripts from Adsense or Facebook?
http://www.peterbe.com/plog/requirejs-vs-headjs
(in the end I decided to use HeadJS but just the loader)