• TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Treeshaking imports (which, admittedly, I just learned about from some googling) assume that the JS you’re importing comes from another file (that the browser would have to fetch separately), yes? I believe that’s not a restriction of RequireJS (which I have experience with through my work but wouldn’t use on any personal projects.)

    I’m just thinking performance-wise you’d get better performance by putting all of your JS in one (or a very few) files to be fetched from the server via one (or very few) requests. I am perhaps more of a stickler for shaving a millisecond here and there. (Which is part of why I wouldn’t use large JS lubraries. I wouldn’t want to make the browser have to load them.)

    • jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s very typical to import code from other files, but it’s also typical to have a minification step that essentially performs what you’re saying, compressing the files down into something more optimal. In fact more advanced solutions essentially stream the minium amount to users as needed, and compute as much as possible in the server side.

      To be honest, I’d bet a lot than by not utilising larger libraries and their standardised functions, your code has a good chance of running slower. Besides, for the typical computer and network capabilities today, there’s a lot of wiggling room.

      That said, for absolute tip top of performance (where experience is a trade off) you can find fun things like this, where groups do have to push for the upmost performance.