So in my page I have some little scripts which I dont really need to load once you visit the site and in fact the user might not need them at all in their entire session.
Also, according to this: http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/payload.html#DeferLoadingJS its not a good practise either.
So for example, currently I have everything in 'When dom ready':
$(function() {
// most of the code of which is not needed
});
If I dont place the code inside the Dom ready, its not executable at most of the times. So I thought of doing seperate functions for each snippet.
For exmaple:
function snippet1() {
// Code here
}
and then when I need that snippet, I load it when needed with mouseclick. (Not always a mouselcick, depends what I need to load).
For example:
$('#button1').click(function() {
snippet1();
});
So my question is: Is this the way of loading functions async so you reduce the page load time or is there a better way? I havent read this anywhere my examples, I just thought of it.
Note that I am aware of the asynch loading's but that is not my option here, since I could combine all the functions in just one js file which will be cached, so page load time will be less than loading every time asynch js files.
You're mixing several things:
Page load time
JavaScript parsing time - After the script is loaded, it has to be parsed (error checking, compiling to byte code, etc)
Function execution time
You can't do much about the page load time since you don't want to split the script. You may consider to split it into two parts: One which you always need and an "optional" part which is rarely needed. Load the rare functions in the background.
Note that page load times become pretty moot after the site has been visited once and you've made sure the browser can cache the files.
If you want to reduce parse times, you have two options:
Don't load parts that you don't need.
Compress the scripts. Google has a great tool for that: the Closure Compiler. Besides making your scripts faster, it will also check for many common mistakes.
The last part is the execution times. These are only relevant if the functions are called at all and when they do a lot. In your case, I guess you can ignore this point.
Yes, as much as possible you should define objects, functions, etc. outside of the document.ready wrapper. Some devs will define absolutely everything outside the wrapper and then just call an init() function inside the wrapper to load everything else. I am one such dev.
As for async, this doesn't do true async loading, but it speeds up your page since there is much less work to do on page load.
In general, if you're not using a script loader like requireJS or yepnope, it's a good idea to put all your script references – or at least those that don't need to be run instantly – at the end of your body so the page renders before the resources that aren't going to be run until after page load anyway.
I would load all additional resources using RequireJS ( http://requirejs.org/ ) or similar library.
Put everything that you don't need immediately to separate script and load it after main content is loaded.
Related
I have a plugin that is currently installed on about 30,000 WordPress websites. In some cases, we find customers doing everything in their power to increase their page load speeds. This is certainly a good goal to have as we all know it can affect SEO, user experience and whatnot.
A common problem, however, is that when people move things around or defer them to much, it can create conflicts. In fact, in some cases, I'm actually seeing the DOM loaded event firing off prior to the scripts being loaded. I have a tiny snippet of code that is output via PHP because it is dynamic and contains variables from the server that will be passed to the functions in the JS file.
However, if the DOM loaded event fires off meaning that the files should already be loaded, but they aren't, then I get calls to undefined functions errors. I'm sure you've all seen those before.
So I'm contemplating using a setInterval to check for the existence of my JS files functions before moving forward and then immediately clearing the interval as soon as the function becomes available.
In 90% of cases, the setInterval will never fire off more than just the one time. In the small percentage of cases where they have something unusual going on, it will defer the running of the functions until the code is available.
Here's a make believe example that exemplifies exactly what I'm referring to:
var check_for_my_function = setInterval( function() {
if('function' === typeof my_function ) {
my_function();
clearInterval(check_for_my_function);
}
} , 250 );
Is this a safe and efficient way to do this or is there an actual function that is better suited for accomplishing this kind of delay? I always assumed that I would be safe listening for the DOM loaded event, but even that tends to be premature in some extreme use cases.
I am building a framework in which I have merged all JavaScript files into one file (minify).
Example:
function A() {} function B() {}
Through minified file i want to load function asynchronous and remove from HTML when its work is done.
Example: load function A when it is required but not function B.
I have seen one framework Require.js but in that it loads JavaScript file asynchronous based on requirement.
Is there any framework which loads JavaScript functions on demand which are defined in same js file.
The downside to concatenation is you get less fine-grained control over what you are including on a given page load. The solution to this is, rather than creating one concatenated file, create layers of functionality that can be included a little more modularly. Thus you don't need all your JS on a page that may only use a few specific functions. This can actually be a win in speed as well, since having just one JS file might not take advantage of the browsers 6 concurrent connections. Moreover, once SPDY is fully adopted, one large file will actually be less performant than more smaller ones (since connections can be reused). Minification will still be important, however.
All that said, it seems you are asking for something a little difficult to pull off. When a browser loads a script, it gets parsed and executed immediately. You can't load the file then... only load part of the file. By concatenating, you are restricting yourself to that large payload.
It is possible to delay execution by wrapping a script in a block comment, then accessing it from the script node and eval()ing it... but that doesn't seem like what you are asking. It can be a useful strategy, though, if you want to preload modules without locking the UI.
That's not how javascript works. When the function's source file is loaded, the function is available in memory. Since the language is interpreted, the functions that are defined would be loaded as soon as the source file was read by the browser.
Your best bet is to use Require.js or something similar if you want to have explicit dependency chains.
I have some wordpress pages with javascript code that require javascript file references. For pages that don't call functions within these js file references, there should be no performance impact for including these files (except the file call) right?
-- EDIT in response to #cdhowie --
If only certain pages require these javascript files, is it possible to move them out of the head section and into the page? I've read this is bad practice.
But in theory, this prevents the entire site from having a performance hit for files that are not being utilized?
The referenced JavaScript files will be downloaded (or fetched from the cache) and then be executed by the browser's JavaScript interpreter in both cases. The "JavaScript file references" need to be executed in order to create the variables and functions that you might use, and the browser has no way of knowing ahead of time if you will use them. Further, the included files might actually manipulate the document, and the browser doesn't know this either until it has executed them.
So yes, there will be a performance impact whether or not you call the functions. Whether or not it's significant enough for you to worry about is something you will have to determine. (Always profile your page's loading time before making decisions like this!)
Javascript functions are only executed when you explicitly call them (or implicitly in callbacks and whatnot). The code will however still be interpreted by the browser on each page regardless of functions being called or not.
Edit:
I was wrong to say the performance hit is irrelevant. It really all depends on your exact situation (where the code is coming from, how much code, etc.) and also how much you care about performance in terms of milliseconds.
One possible "performance" issue is if those extra .js files are on your server. If so and you are loading them when it is not needed, you are causing for unneeded traffic and bandwidth in regards to your server.
This will execute, but take up very little cpu time
<script type="text/javascript">
// just a comment
</script>
no functions, just a comment... but it's still "code", still has to be parsed, still has to be checked for syntax errors, etc...
I am currently making a sort of web app and part of it works by dynamically loading and adding js scripts to the page. For this I am using JQuery's $.getScript() method which loads it in.
I have it set as cached.
With my program if a script already exists it is loaded again anyway, from what appears to be cache. What I am wondering though is how much would this effect the site and performance. Does a newly loaded script that has the same src as an existing one overwrite the previous one or is the new one added alongside the old one?
Further more as my site is an AJAX site its possible for several scripts from different pages to eventually be loaded up over time. Is there any browser restrictions on how many scripts one can have loaded?
It will affect site performance. Even if your script is cached on the client with expiration set the browser still needs to parse and execute newly included script. More than that, there's a very good chance you will run into javascript errors because you scripts will override variables already set by previous version. JavaScript parsing and executing is still a blocking operation in all browsers, so while your file is being processed your UI will lock up.
To answer second part of the question, as far as I know there's no limit of number of javascript files on a given page. I've seen pages with over 200 javascripts that didn't throw any exceptions.
I think Ilya has provided some great points to consider, and I think that answers your specific question. If what you're trying to accomplish, however, is rerunning a $(document).ready() handler, you could do:
(function(){
var myreadyfunction = function(){
$('#affected').toggleClass('blue');
};
$(document).ready(myreadyfunction);
$(document).ready(function(){
$('button').click(myreadyfunction);
});
})();
http://jsfiddle.net/Z97cm/
I've scoped it into an anonymous (function(){})(); to keep out of the global scope, so you might want to consider that if you need to access that function from outside that scope. But that gives you the general idea of what I was talking about.
Looked around, couldn't find this specific question discussed. Pretty sure the difference is negligible, just curious as to your thoughts.
Scenario: All Javascript that doesn't need to be loaded before page render has been placed just before the closing </body> tag. Are there any benefits or detriments to lazy loading these instead through some Javascript code in the head that executes when the DOM load/ready event is fired? Let's say that this only concerns downloading one entire .js file full of functions and not lazy loading several individual files as needed upon usage.
Hope that's clear, thanks.
There is a big difference, in my opinion.
When you inline the JS at the bottom of the <body> tag, you're forcing the page to load those <script>s synchronously (must happen now) and sequentially (in a row), so you're slowing down the page a bit, as you must wait for those HTTP calls to finish and the JS engine to interpret your scripts. If you're putting lots of JS stacked up together at the bottom of the page, you could be wasting the user's time with network queueing (in older browsers only 2 connections per host at a time), as the scripts may depend on each other, so they must be downloaded in order.
If you want your DOM to be ready faster (usually what most wait on to do any event handling and animation), you must reduce the size of the scripts you need to as little as possible as well as parallelize them.
For instance, YUI3 has a small dependency resolution and downloading script that you must load sequentially in the page (see YUI3's seed.js). After that, you go through the page and gather the dependencies and make 1 asynchronous and pipelined call to their CDN (or your own servers) to get a big ball of JS. After the JS ball is returned, your scripts execute the callbacks you've supplied. Here's the general pattern:
<script src="seed.js"></script>
<script>
YUI().use('module', function(Y) {
// done when the ball returns and is interpretted
});
</script>
I'm not a particularly big fan of putting your scripts into 1 big ball (because if 1 dependency changes, you must download and interpret the whole thing over again!), but I am a fan of pipe-lining (combining scripts) and the event-based model.
When you do allow for asynchronous, event-based loading, you get better performance, but perhaps not perceived performance (though this can be counteracted).
For instance, parts of the page may not load for a second or two, and hence look different (if you're using JS to affect the page style, which I don't advise) or not be ready for user interaction until you (or those hosting your site) return your scripts.
Additionally, you must do some work to ensure your <script>s have the right dependencies to be able to execute properly. For instance, if you don't have jQuery or Prototype, you can't successfully call:
<script>
$(function () {
/* do something */
});
</script>
or
<script>
document.observe('dom:loaded', function {
/* do something */
});
</script>
as the interpretter will say something like "Variable $ undefined". This can happen even if you've added both <script>s to the DOM at the same time, as I'd bet jQuery or Prototype are bigger than you're application's JS (so the request for the data takes longer). Either way, without some type of limiting, you're leaving this up to chance.
So, the choice is really up to you. If you can properly segment your dependencies - i.e. put the stuff you need up front and lazily load the other stuff later, it'll result in faster overall time until you hit the DOM being ready.
However, if you use a monolithic library like jQuery or the user expects to be able to see something involving JS animation or style right away, inlining might be better for you.
In terms of Usability, you definitely shouldn't do this with anything that the user expects a quick response from like having a button do double duty as the load trigger in addition to it's other function.
OTOH replacing pagination with continuously loading the page as the user scrolls is a very good idea. I do find it a distraction when the load trigger is towards the end of the page, better to put it 1/2 to 3/4 the way down.