Develop Reference

Gradually move from including each JS files to module bundling

In our AngularJS application we currently have a lot (400+) of files, which get included via <script>-tags. The order these files is something like this:
AngularJS script files
3rd party plugins / modules
business Logic files
modules
services
controllers / components / directives
We would like to move to a better approach utilizing a module bundler and TypeScript. New files are already written in TypeScript but don't make use of import/export. In order to make things easier, we could convert every JavaScript file into a TypeScript file and fix the resulting errors in a feasible time.
However, before we do this, we would like to have a viable strategy on how we could gradually make use of import/export. I'm thinking of something like rewriting one module from time to time, starting with modules deep down in the dependency tree.
However I was not able to achieve this, but I'm quiet sure that others already had to solve this before.

Once you decide on a module bundler, you'll need to learn about its facilities for (1) allowing other JavaScript on the page to access things defined in the bundle and (2) allowing the bundle to access things defined by other JavaScript on the page. (If you're able to migrate in strict dependency order, you might never need #2.) For example, for Webpack, #1 would be the library* output options and #2 would be externals. Then just move the code into modules little by little, adjusting the configuration as necessary so that each part of the code has access to the things it needs from the other part of the code. Since Webpack only supports a single library export module, during the transition, you may have to maintain a dummy module that just re-exports all modules that you need to access from code outside the bundle. This is a little tedious and represents extra work that you wouldn't have to do if you migrated all at once, but you may decide it's worth paying that cost in order to be able to migrate gradually.
If you have issues getting type information from TypeScript module files in non-module TypeScript files, see this answer for a workaround.

Google CDN for Angular Dependencies?

Is there a way to reduce the following includes down to one?
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular-route.min.js"></script>
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular-sanitize.min.js"></script>
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular-animate.min.js"></script>
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular-cookies.min.js"></script>
I cannot find a combined version of these hosted on Google's CDN.

I have been looking for a bundle myself, but haven't found one yet. Seems to me you have to bundle them manually if you want to have them all in one js. file.
I was thinking about creating a grunt task (or similar) to fetch all dependencies and merge them into one file. I know you want to use a CDN, but just wanted to share that thought.
update
For anyone interested in the latter, just came across this grunt-fetch-from-cdn plugin. Haven't tried it myself yet, but looks interesting.

I would argue that the main benefit of a CDN is for everyone to be using the same files, thus allowing for caching to remove the need to load the file at all for most visitors due to its widespread use across other sites.
Assumably, the number of permutations required to bundle various configurations of Angular dependencies would completely negate this benefit, and you would be better off packaging the bundle with all of your other JS for the lowest possible number of requests and serving it yourself.
However, it does seem as if Angular updates rather frequently which, while good for bug fixes, means that there are probably many different versions (and thus files) in use in production environments at the moment. This will also lower the benefit of caching across various sites.
When in doubt, test both methods across devices from friends/family/work/etc. that have seen normal internet usage on sites other than your own.
I would guess that in most cases it would be smarter to just include each module's CDN link separately like you did above and let caching take care of reducing the actual number of requests. If that becomes common practice then the extra number of files won't have much impact on load time.

I agree with Colt, but the following can be useful if used wisely (see "Load multiple files with a single HTTP request"): JSDelivr

Either you can use gulp task to build them up into a single script or you can use bower to install these dependencies at once.

Why use requireJS instead of an ordered include list?

I've been using a grunt file to concatenate all my JS into a single file which is then sent to the client. What advantage do I have in using require calls then? The dependencies are inherent from the concatenation order and I don't have to muddy all my JS with extra code and another third-party library.
Further, backbone models (for example) clearly state their inheritance in their definitions. Not to mention that they simply wouldn't work if their dependencies weren't included anyway.
Also, wouldn't maintenance be easier if all comments related to dependencies were in one place (the grunt file) to prevent human error and having to open every JS file to understand its dependencies?
EDIT
My (ordered) file list looks something like:
....
files: [
"js/somelib.js",
"js/somelib2.js",
"js/somelib3.js",
"js/models.js",
"js/views.js",
"js/controllers.js",
"js/main.js"
], ...
So perhaps requireJS isn't worth it for small projects anyway.

Using require.js allow you to break down each part of your application into reusable modules (AMD) and to manage those dependencies easily. It is not easy to manage dependencies in a javascript application with 100 classes, for example.
Also, if you don't want all the overhead of require, check this out (developed by the same guy who created require.js): https://github.com/jrburke/almond

The answer depends on the size of your app and the end use case..
A single site.min.js payload for the front end (client) generally aims for small file sizes and simple architectures (1 single file generated from maybe 10).
back end based (server) apps are usually much bigger and complicated and therefore may warrant the use of another tool to help with managing large code libraries and dependencies (50 files for example).
In general, RequireJS is worthwhile but only if you have many files and dependencies. An alternative for use in the client would be almond. Again, using a tool like this must warrant the need (many files and dependencies).
The answer from orourkedd is also worth reading.

Loading jQuery / CSS inline when needed or always via external?

I like keeping myself busy building modular web-applications, but don't want to spend time where I can save some..
For example I'm building a news module that should be easily implemented over multiple sites, because the same web-application is used.
However not all websites will need a news module. Is it better/easier/faster to create an inline stylesheet/javascript file built into the module itself, than to create a big external stylesheet/javascript with all the libraries? Even though the file for the news module is not needed on all other webpages?
It seems to be much easier to create an inline library in the module itself. So that this only gets loaded when needed, and saves load time and bandwidth on the other pages.
The other thing is that I like writing 'plug-and-play' modules. Say I move a file across the file server into the module folder, and the application will take care of the rest. With inline sheets, I dont have to add new lines to the header/footer etc.
What is the best solution for this? When also taking into account that I rather spend 10 minutes moving a file and it works, than to spend 1 hour appending external libraries just because its more of a 'good practice'?

If you re building web applications, are you using the MVC patern? Do you separate your concerns? (your Templates/Views, your Models, and your logic(Controllers))
If you follow MVC, it makes easier maintaining and customizing your app.
To answer to your exact question, what you need is RequireJS. This way you have only one place to declare your requirements, and RequireJS will handle the rest.. Load order and more..
Quoting from the requirejs website:
Over time, if you start to create more modular code that needs to be
reused in a few places, the module format for RequireJS makes it easy
to write encapsulated code that can be loaded on the fly.

Inline is never a solid way to maintain CSS. Take care to separate the description of your layout from your views. You can easily include the file in the same directory as the module so it should not be an issue.

Or if you want just to load "on fly" some script you can use jQuery.getScript , http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.getScript/ . Otherwise you should follow George's way.

When to use Requirejs and when to use bundled javascript?

This may be a dumb question for web guys. But I am a little confused over this. Now, I have an application where I am using a couple of Javascript files to perform different tasks. Now, I am using Javascript bundler to combine and minify all the files. So, at runtime there will be only one app.min.js file. Now, Requirejs is used to load modules or files at runtime. So, the question is if I already have all things in one file, then do I need requirejs? Or what is a use case scenario where I can use requirejs and/or bundler?
Please let me know if any further details are needed.

Generally you only use RequireJS in its loading form during development. Once the site is done and ready for deployment, you minify the code. The advantage here is RequireJS knows exactly what your dependencies are, and thus can easily minify the code in the correct order. Here is what it says on the RequireJS website:
Once you are finished doing development and want to deploy your code for your end users, you can use the optimizer to combine the JavaScript files together and minify it. In the example above, it can combine main.js and helper/util.js into one file and minify the result.

This is a hotly contested issue among many proficient javascript developers. Many other languages have a "compilation" phase where the entire program is bundled up for deployment (JBoss's .WAR files come to mind). Programmers that come from more traditional backgrounds often favor this approach.
Javascript has seen such growth in recent years that it is difficult to chart exact best practices, but those that appreciate the more functional nature of Javascript often prefer the module loading approach (like require.js uses).
I wrote Frame.js which works much like require.js, so my bias is towards the module loader approach.
To answer your question directly, yes, it is one or the other.
Most that argue for packing your scripts into a single file believe it enables more compression and is thus more efficient. I believe the efficiency advantages of packaging are negligible in most cases because: (1) module load times are distributed over the entire session, (2) individual modules can be compressed to nearly the same percentage, (3) individual modules can be cached by the server and routers separately, and (4) loading scripts only when they are needed ultimately allows you load less code for some users and more code overall.
In the long run, if you can see an advantage to dynamic script loading use it. If not, bundle your scripts into a single file.

It depends on your application. If you're making a server-side app with only modest javascript (less than 100kb minified) then go for total bundling, you're probably going to be fine.
But if you're making a javascript app and have a ton of code in it, then your needs are going to be different.
For example, in my app I bundle all the core files. There's jQuery, underscore, backbone, my main app files, my user login system, my layout system, my notifications and chat system, all are part of my big initial file.
But I have many other modules as well that isn't part of the initial bundle, that are loaded after those.
The forums, the wiki, the wysiwyg, color picker, drag/drop, calendar, and some animation files are part of the second category. You need to make reasonable decisions about what's commonly used and needed immediately vs what can be delayed.
If I include everything immediately I can get above a meg of javascript, which would be insane and make the initial boot unacceptably slow.
The second category starts downloading after initSuccess event fires from the initial file.
But the second category is more intelligent than the first in that it loads what's more important first. For example if you're looking at the wiki it'll load the wiki before it loads the color picker.