Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JQuery 1.7 Released

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#41

Post by JonnieCache »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #37
alastair wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't there a tool that analyzes which functions / features of jQuery your project is using and generates a smaller library with only the stuff you need? I'm not really a developer so ignore if that's not possible / makes no sense.

Google's Closure compiler can apparently do that.

Doesn't work on jquery. To use that functionality of the closure compiler without breaking your code, the source has to be annotated in a special way, or it has to be incredibly simple.

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#42

Post by JoachimSchipper »

JonnieCache wrote: post #41
JoachimSchipper wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's Closure compiler can apparently do that.

Doesn't work on jquery. To use that functionality of the closure compiler without breaking your code, the source has to be annotated in a special way, or it has to be incredibly simple.

I don't know much about this, but do you mean http://code.google.com/p/closure-compiler/source/browse/trun... ? That suggests that it will be available at some point, at least...

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#43

Post by Werba »

bad_user wrote: post #24

One thing I don't like about jQuery's evolution is the size. This version weights at 92K minified / 33K gzipped, which for mobile phones is a PITA.

I had split jquery 1.6 to two parts just put some code to string an then used exec, hack but work.

Why eq: 1.css 14kb -250ms engine.js 12kb 250ms

jquery 33kb 320ms ???

so

jquery1.js 13kb - 243ms jquery2.js 14kb - 250ms

So my page open 100ms faster :P

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#44

Post by bad_user »

Werba wrote: post #43
bad_user wrote: post #24

One thing I don't like about jQuery's evolution is the size. This version weights at 92K minified / 33K gzipped, which for mobile phones is a PITA.

I had split jquery 1.6 to two parts just put some code to string an then used exec, hack but work. Why eq: 1.css 14kb -250ms engine.js 12kb 250ms jquery 33kb 320ms ??? so jquery1.js 13kb - 243ms jquery2.js 14kb - 250ms So my page open 100ms faster :P

Dude, I don't understand you. You did what?

I don't think you gain anything by splitting it in 2 files. It could happen if the browser downloads the 2 files in parallel, but it can make your page load actually worse because you do not have a guarantee of parallelism (there's a limit to how many resources you can download in parallel from the same domain and adding multiple domains is not without cost because of the extra DNS lookup, which is also a big problem on mobile phones) and you're also introducing eval().

If anything, a better hack would be to load it such that it does not block the page being loaded.

See a sample how it's done in this project: https://github.com/alexandru/crossdomain-requests-js/wiki/Us...

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#45

Post by dmethvin »

brunnsbe wrote: post #34

It's always nice with new features and enhancements but some bugs should first be fixed, like e.g. this one (i cannot update my code to a version higher than 1.5.x due to customers still using IE7): http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/9646

We closed a huge number of bugs in 1.7, but yes there are about 100 open bugs plus another roughly 100 more that are either feature requests or unverified. For a project the size of jQuery and considering the installed base, I think that is pretty good.

And the way these bugs get fixed is by someone spending a lot of time to track them down. As the 1.7 blog post mentions, we definitely welcome any help we can get. We are all volunteers so we don't have the time to quickly track down and fix every bug.

In the triage process we put priority on fixing the worst bugs that affect the most people. I personally triaged both #9646 and #8205 so we could mark them as verified, but tracking down and solving older-IE problems can be torture given the crude stone debugging tools available in those environments. If you have a high threshold for pain, we could certainly use your help.

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#46

Post by dmethvin »

luriel wrote: post #29
vessenes wrote: post #15

My favorite part of the release notes: "Despite jQuery.isNaN() being undocumented, several projects on Github were using it. We have contacted them and asked that they use jQuery.isNumeric() or some other solution." This is an excellent reminder of how much things have changed in the last 10 years in our space; a popular tools vendor can go query a massive source code repository and reach out proactively for transiti…

This is one of the reasons why Google killing Code Search is so sad.

Yes! Whenever someone on the jQuery team wonders, "But who does that anyway?" we turn to Google Codesearch. Often, we don't like the answers we find. But at least we find the answers. For example, the 600 occurrences of `$("document")` that should be `$(document)`.

http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=\$\%28\%22doc...

Re: JQuery 1.7 Released

#47

Post by Werba »

bad_user wrote: post #44
Werba wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had split jquery 1.6 to two parts just put some code to string an then used exec, hack but work. Why eq: 1.css 14kb -250ms engine.js 12kb 250ms jquery 33kb 320ms ??? so jquery1.js 13kb - 243ms jquery2.js 14kb - 250ms So my page open 100ms faster :P

Dude, I don't understand you. You did what? I don't think you gain anything by splitting it in 2 files. It could happen if the browser downloads the 2 files in parallel, but it can make your page load actually worse because you do not have a guarantee of parallelism (there's a limit to how many resources you can download in parallel from the same domain and adding multiple domains is not without cost because of the e…

Firefox is 6 parlsee but my website is 3 files so

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7133749/can-i-split-jquer...

Post reply on HN