Develop Reference

Single JS script or multiple scripts? [duplicate]

I'm used to working with Java in which (as we know) each object is defined in its own file (generally speaking). I like this. I think it makes code easier to work with and manage.
I'm beginning to work with javascript and I'm finding myself wanting to use separate files for different scripts I'm using on a single page. I'm currently limiting myself to only a couple .js files because I'm afraid that if I use more than this I will be inconvenienced in the future by something I'm currently failing to foresee. Perhaps circular references?
In short, is it bad practice to break my scripts up into multiple files?

There are lots of correct answers, here, depending on the size of your application and whom you're delivering it to (by whom, I mean intended devices, et cetera), and how much work you can do server-side to ensure that you're targeting the correct devices (this is still a long way from 100% viable for most non-enterprise mortals).
When building your application, "classes" can reside in their own files, happily.
When splitting an application across files, or when dealing with classes with constructors that assume too much (like instantiating other classes), circular-references or dead-end references ARE a large concern.
There are multiple patterns to deal with this, but the best one, of course is to make your app with DI/IoC in mind, so that circular-references don't happen.
You can also look into require.js or other dependency-loaders. How intricate you need to get is a function of how large your application is, and how private you would like everything to be.
When serving your application, the baseline for serving JS is to concatenate all of the scripts you need (in the correct order, if you're going to instantiate stuff which assumes other stuff exists), and serve them as one file at the bottom of the page.
But that's baseline.
Other methods might include "lazy/deferred" loading.
Load all of the stuff that you need to get the page working up-front.
Meanwhile, if you have applets or widgets which don't need 100% of their functionality on page-load, and in fact, they require user-interaction, or require a time-delay before doing anything, then make loading the scripts for those widgets a deferred event. Load a script for a tabbed widget at the point where the user hits mousedown on the tab. Now you've only loaded the scripts that you need, and only when needed, and nobody will really notice the tiny lag in downloading.
Compare this to people trying to stuff 40,000 line applications in one file.
Only one HTTP request, and only one download, but the parsing/compiling time now becomes a noticeable fraction of a second.
Of course, lazy-loading is not an excuse for leaving every class in its own file.
At that point, you should be packing them together into modules, and serving the file which will run that whole widget/applet/whatever (unless there are other logical places, where functionality isn't needed until later, and it's hidden behind further interactions).
You could also put the loading of these modules on a timer.
Load the baseline application stuff up-front (again at the bottom of the page, in one file), and then set a timeout for a half-second or so, and load other JS files.
You're now not getting in the way of the page's operation, or of the user's ability to move around. This, of course is the most important part.

Update from 2020: this answer is very old by internet standards and is far from the full picture today, but still sees occasional votes so I feel the need to provide some hints on what has changed since it was posted. Good support for async script loading, HTTP/2's server push capabilities, and general browser optimisations to the loading process over the years, have all had an impact on how breaking up Javascript into multiple files affects loading performance.
For those just starting out with Javascript, my advice remains the same (use a bundler / minifier and trust it to do the right thing by default), but for anybody finding this question who has more experience, I'd invite them to investigate the new capabilities brought with async loading and server push.
Original answer from 2013-ish:
Because of download times, you should always try to make your scripts a single, big, file. HOWEVER, if you use a minifier (which you should), they can combine multiple source files into one for you. So you can keep working on multiple files then minify them into a single file for distribution.
The main exception to this is public libraries such as jQuery, which you should always load from public CDNs (more likely the user has already loaded them, so doesn't need to load them again). If you do use a public CDN, always have a fallback for loading from your own server if that fails.
As noted in the comments, the true story is a little more complex;
Scripts can be loaded synchronously (<script src="blah"></script>) or asynchronously (s=document.createElement('script');s.async=true;...). Synchronous scripts block loading other resources until they have loaded. So for example:
<script src="a.js"></script>
<script src="b.js"></script>
will request a.js, wait for it to load, then load b.js. In this case, it's clearly better to combine a.js with b.js and have them load in one fell swoop.
Similarly, if a.js has code to load b.js, you will have the same situation no matter whether they're asynchronous or not.
But if you load them both at once and asynchronously, and depending on the state of the client's connection to the server, and a whole bunch of considerations which can only be truly determined by profiling, it can be faster.
(function(d){
var s=d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0],f=d.createElement('script');
f.type='text/javascript';
f.async=true;
f.src='a.js';
s.parentNode.insertBefore(f,s);
f=d.createElement('script');
f.type='text/javascript';
f.async=true;
f.src='b.js';
s.parentNode.insertBefore(f,s);
})(document)
It's much more complicated, but will load both a.js and b.js without blocking each other or anything else. Eventually the async attribute will be supported properly, and you'll be able to do this as easily as loading synchronously. Eventually.

There are two concerns here: a) ease of development b) client-side performance while downloading JS assets
As far as development is concerned, modularity is never a bad thing; there are also Javascript autoloading frameworks (like requireJS and AMD) you can use to help you manage your modules and their dependencies.
However, to address the second point, it is better to combine all your Javascript into a single file and minify it so that the client doesn't spend too much time downloading all your resources. There are tools (requireJS) that let you do this as well (i.e., combine all your dependencies into a single file).

It's depending on the protocol you are using now. If you are using http2, I suggest you to split the js file. If you use http, I advise you to use minified js file.
Here is the sample of website using http and http2
Thanks, hope it helps.

It does not really matter. If you use the same JavaScript in multiple files, it can surely be good to have a file with the JavaScript to fetch from. So you just need to update the script from one place.

Converting a web app into an embeddable <script> tag

I just did a proof of concept/demo for a web app idea I had but that idea needs to be embedded on pages to work properly.
I'm now done with the development of the demo but now I have to tweak it so it works within a tag on any websites.
The question here is:
How do I achieve this without breaking up the main website's stylesheets and javascript?
It's a node.js/socket.io/angularjs/bootstrap based app for your information.
I basically have a small HTML file, a few css and js files and that's all. Any idea or suggestions?

If all you have is a script tag, and you want to inject UI/HTML/etc. into the host page, that means that an iframe approach may not be what you want (although you could possibly do a hybrid approach). So, there are a number of things that you'd need to do.
For one, I'd suggest you look into the general concept of a bookmarklet. While it's not exactly what you want, it's very similar. The problems of creating a bookmarklet will be very similar:
You'll need to isolate your JavaScript dependencies. For example, you can't load a version of a library that breaks the host page. jQuery for example, can be loaded without it taking over the $ symbol globally. But, not all libraries support that.
Any styles you use would also need to be carefully managed so as to not cause issues on the host page. You can load styles dynamically, but loading something like Bootstrap is likely going to cause problems on most pages that aren't using the exact same version you need.
You'll want your core Javascript file to load quickly and do as much async work as possible as to not affect the overall page load time (unless your functionality is necessary). You'll want to review content like this from Steve Souders.
You could load your UI via a web service or you could construct it locally.
If you don't want to use JSONP style requests, you'll need to investigate enabling CORS.
You could use an iframe and PostMessage to show some UI without needing to do complex wrapping/remapping of the various application dependencies that you have. PostMessage would allow you to send messages to tell the listening iFrame "what to do" at any given point, while the code that is running in the host page could move/manipulate the iframe into position. A number of popular embedded APIs have used this technique over the years. I think DropBox was using it for example.

Put CSS and JavaScript in files or main HTML?

Although it is always recommended to put JavaScript and CSS code into appropriate files (as .js and .css), most of major websites (like Amazon, facebook, etc.) put a significant part of their JavaScript and CSS code directly within the main HTML page.
Where is the best choice?

Place your .js in multiple files, then package, minify and gzip that into one file.
Keep your HTML into multiple seperate files.
Place your .css in multiple files, then package, minify and gzip that into one file.
Then you simply send one css file and one js file to the client to be cached.
You do not inline them with your HTML.
If you inline them then any change to the css or html or js forces to user to download all three again.
The main reason major websites have js & cs in their files, is because major websites code rot. Major companies don't uphold standards and best practices, they just hack it until it works then say "why waste money on our website, it works doesn't it?".
Don't look at examples of live websites, because 99% of all examples on the internet show bad practices.
Also for the love of god, Separation of concerns please. You should never ever use inline javascript or inline css in html pages.

http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#external
Yahoo (even though they have many inline styles and scripts), recommends making them external. I believe google page speed used to (or still does?) do the same as well.
It's really a logical thing to have them separate. There are so many benefits to keeping CSS and JS separate to the HTML. Things like logical code management, caching of those pages, lower page size (would you rather a ~200ms request for a 400kb cached resource, or a 4000ms delay from having to download that data on every page?), SEO options (less crap for google to look through when scripts/styles are external), easier to minify external scripts (online tools etc), can load them synchronously from different servers....
That should be your primary objective in any website. All styles that make up your whole website should be in the one file (or files for each page, then merged and minified when updated), the same for javascript.
In the real world (not doing a project for yourself, doing one for a client or stakeholder that wants results), the only time where it doesn't make sense to load in another javascript resource or another stylesheet (and thus use inline styles/javascript) is if there's some kind of dynamic information that is on a kind of per-user, per-session or per-time-period that can't be accomplished as simply any other way. Example: when my website has a promotion, we dump a script tag with a small JSON object of information. Because we don't minify and merge multiple files, it makes more sense to just include it in the page. Sure there are other ways to do this, but it costs $20 to do that, whereas it could cost > $100 to do it another way.
Perhaps Amazon/Facebook/Google etc use so much inline code is so their servers aren't taxed so much. I'm not too sure on the benchmarking between requesting a 1MB file in one hit or requesting 10 100KB files (presuming 1MB/10 = 100KB for examples' sake), but what would be faster? Potentially the 1MB file, BUT smaller requests can be loaded synchronously, meaning each one of those 10 requests could come from a separate server/domain potentially, thus reducing overall load time.
Further, google homepages for example seem to dump a JSON array of information for the widgets, presumably because it compiles all that information from various sources, minifies it, caches it, then puts in on the page, then the javascript functions build the layout (client side processing power rather than server-side).

An interesting investigation might be whether they include various .css files regardless of the style blocks you're also seeing. Perhaps it's overhead or perhaps it's convenience.
I've found that while working with different styles of interface developer (and content deployers) that convenience/authority often wins in the face of deadlines and "getting the job done". In a project of a large scale there could be factors involved like "No, you ain't touching our stylesheets", or perhaps if there isn't a stylesheet using an http request already then convenience has won a battle against good practice.

If your css and javascript code is for a global usage, then it is best to put them into appropriate files.
Otherwise, if the code is used just by a certain page, like the home page, put them directly into html is acceptable, and is good for maintenance.

Our team keeps it all seperate. All resources like this goes into a folder called _Content.
CSS goes into _Content/css/xxx.js
JS goes into _Content/js/lib/xxx.js (For all the library packages)
Custom page events and functions get called from the page, but are put into a main JS file in _Content/js/Main.js
Images will go into the same place under _Content/images/xxx.x
This is just how we lay it out as it keeps the HTML markup as it should be, for markup.

I think putting css and js into the main html makes the page loads fast.

Only running javascript required for current page, best methods?

So I know it's best to have one javascript file for an entire site to limit http requests. So obviously only some javascript is required for some pages. What is the best way of only running the javascript required for the current page?
EG.
if(page=='home'){
//run javascript require for the home page
}
Maybe this isn't an issue and if targeting elements are not found on the page javascript will just fail gracefully? I would just like to know the best practice for this javascript structure.

Encapsulate your logic in functions. Then just call the function(s) you need in each page, either via "onload" or an embedded function call in the page:
<script type="text/javascript">
yourFunctionForThisPage();
</script>
Edit: Just to clarify: my answer is assuming the (implied) constraint of a single .js file. As others have pointed out, although you save on HTTP requests, this is not necessarily a good idea: the browser still has to parse all the code in the file for each page, whether used or not. To be honest it's pretty unusual to have a global site-wide js resource with everything in it. It's probably a much better idea to logically split out your js into various files, i.e libraries. These libraries could be page-based - i.e specific code for a particular page, or algorithm/task-based that you can include in whatever pages need them.

Is this feasible?
While it is best to have just a single Javascript file per page to lower the number of requests yet it may not be feasible. Especially the way that you'd like to do it.
If you're asking how to join various scripts of various pages into a single script and then running just those parts that are related to a particular page then this is something you shouldn't do. What good is it for you to have one huge file with lots of scripts (also think of maintainability) compared to a few short integrated scripts? If you keep the number of scripts low (ie. below 10) you shouldn't be to worried.
The big downside is also that browser will load the complete script file which means it will take it more time to parse them as well as consume a lot more resources to use it. I'd strongly suggest against this technique of yours even though it may look interesting...
Other possibilities
The thing is that the number of Javascript files per page is low. Depending on the server side technology you're using there are tools that can combine multiple script files into one so every page will just request a single script file which will combine all those scripts that this particular page will use. There is a bit overhead on the server to accomplish this task, but there will be just one script request.
What do you gain?
every page only has scripts that it needs
individual script files are smaller hence easier to maintain
script size per request is small
browser parsing and resource consumption is kept low

Know what you will need on the page and use a script loader like labjs.
Also, remember that your specific case might be different from what others have found, so you might want to do some tests, to verify if, for example, having 5 little files, is better (or worse) than 1 big file.
The only way to be sure is to test different options yourself and come up with a fitting solution.

How to handle javascript & css files across a site?

I have had some thoughts recently on how to handle shared javascript and css files across a web application.
In a current web application that I am working on, I got quite a large number of different javascripts and css files that are placed in an folder on the server. Some of the files are reused, while others are not.
In a production site, it's quite stupid to have a high number of HTTP requests and many kilobytes of unnecessary javascript and redundant css being loaded. The solution to that is of course to create one big bundled file per page that only contains the necessary information, which then is minimized and sent compressed (GZIP) to the client.
There's no worries to create a bundle of javascript files and minimize them manually if you were going to do it once, but since the app is continuously maintained and things do change and develop, it quite soon becomes a headache to do this manually while pushing out new updates that features changes to javascripts and/or css files to production.
What's a good approach to handle this? How do you handle this in your application?

I built a library, Combres, that does exactly that, i.e. minify, combine etc. It also automatically detects changes to both local and remote JS/CSS files and push the latest to the browser. It's free & open-source. Check this article out for an introduction to Combres.

I am dealing with the exact same issue on a site I am launching.
I recently found out about a project named SquishIt (see on GitHub). It is built for the Asp.net framework. If you aren't using asp.net, you can still learn about the principles behind what he's doing here.
SquishIt allows you to create named "bundles" of files and then to render those combined and minified file bundles throughout the site.

CSS files can be categorized and partitioned to logical parts (like common, print, vs.) and then you can use CSS's import feature to successfully load the CSS files. Reusing of these small files also makes it possible to use client side caching.
When it comes to Javascript, i think you can solve this problem at server side, multiple script files added to the page, you can also dynamically generate the script file server side but for client side caching to work, these parts should have different and static addresses.

I wrote an ASP.NET handler some time ago that combines, compresses/minifies, gzips, and caches the raw CSS and Javascript source code files on demand. To bring in three CSS files, for example, it would look like this in the markup...
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="/getcss.axd?files=main;theme2;contact" />
The getcss.axd handler reads in the query string and determines which files it needs to read in and minify (in this case, it would look for files called main.css, theme2.css, and contact.css). When it's done reading in the file and compressing it, it stores the big minified string in server-side cache (RAM) for a few hours. It always looks in cache first so that on subsequent requests it does not have to re-compress.
I love this solution because...
It reduces the number of requests as much as possible
No additional steps are required for deployment
It is very easy to maintain
Only down-side is that all the style/script code will eventually be stored within server memory. But RAM is so cheap nowadays that it is not as big of a deal as it used to be.
Also, one thing worth mentioning, make sure that the query string is not succeptible to any harmful path manipulation (only allow A-Z and 0-9).

What you are talking about is called minification.
There are many libraries and helpers for different platforms and languages to help with this. As you did not post what you are using, I can't really point you towards something more relevant to yourself.
Here is one project on google code - minify.
Here is an example of a .NET Http handler that does all of this on the fly.