In my project each page has a bunch of dependent Javascript and Css. Whilst developing I just dumped this code right into the page but now I'm looking to clean it up...
it appears that the general approach out there is to package all the Javascript/CSS for an application into two big files that get minimised.
This approach has the benefit that it reduces bandwidth since all the front-end code gets pulled in just once from the server... however, I'm concerned I will be increasing the memory footprint of the application by defining a whole ton of functions for each page that I don't actually need - which is why I had them on a per-page basis to begin with.
is that something anyone else cares about or is there some way to manage this issue?
yes, I have thought of doing conditional function creation since I need to run code conditionally for each page anyway - though that starts to get a bit hackish in my view.
also, is there much cost to defining a whole ton of Css that is never used?
Serving the javascript/CSS in one big hit for the application, allows the browser to cache all it needs for all your pages. If the standard use case for your site is that users will stay and navigate around for a while then this is a good option to use.
If, however, you wish your landing page to load quickly, since there is a chance that the user will navigate away, consider only serving the CSS/javascript required for this page.
In terms of a performance overhead of a large CSS file - there will be none that is noticeable. All modern browsers are highly optimised for applying styles.
As for your javascript - try not to use conditional function creation, conditional namespace creation is acceptable and required, but your functions should be declared only in one place.
The biggest thing you can do for bandwidth is make sure your server is compressing output. Any static document type should be compressed (html, js, css, etc.).
For instance the jQuery Core goes from approx. 90KB to 30KB only because of the compressed output the server is sending to browsers.
If you take into account the compression, then you have to create some mammoth custom JS includes to really need to split-up your JS files.
I really like minifying and obfuscating my code because I can put my documentation right into the un-minified version and then the minification process removes all the comments for the production environment.
One approach would be to have all the shared javascript minified and compressed into one file and served out on each page. Then the page-specific javascript can be compressed/minified to its own files (although I would consider putting any very common page's javascript into the main javascript file).
I've always been in the habit of compressing/minifying all of the CSS into one file, rather than separate files for each page. This is because some of the page-specific files can be very small, and ideally we share as much css across the site as possible.
Like Jasper mentioned the most important thing would be to make sure that your sever is GZIPing the static resources (such as javascript and css).
If you have a lot of javascript code you can take a look on asynchronous loading of js files.
Some large project like ExtJs or Qooxdoo have build in loaders to load only required code, but here is a lot of libs which simplify this, and you can use in your project (e.g. head.js, LAB.js).
Thanks to them you can build application which loads only necessary files, not whole javascript code which in case of big apps can be a heavy stuff for browser.
Related
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.
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.
A typical website consists of one index.html file and a bunch of javascript and css files. To improve the performance of the website, one can:
Minify the javascript and css files, to reduce the file sizes.
Concatenate the javascript files into one file and similar for the css files, to reduce the number of requests to the server. For commonly used (and shared) libraries like jquery it makes sense to leave them external, allowing the browser to cache the library and reuse it in different web applications.
I'm wondering if it makes sense to put the concatenated javascript and css file inline in on single html file, which will reduce the number of requests even further. Will this improve the performance of your site? Or will it work reversed, making it impossible for the browser to cache anything?
Concatinating your CSS and JS files into one file will reduce the number of requests and make it load faster. But as commented, it won't make much sense unless you have a one-page site and the load time of that page is very critical. So you're better off to separate CSS from Javascript in my opinion.
Here's a book where you can learn more about the topic:
High Performance Web Sites
this tools maybe help you.
Turns your web page to a single HTML file with everything inlined - perfect for appcache manifests on mobile devices that you want to reduce those http requests.
https://github.com/remy/inliner
It would cut down on the number of requests but it would also mean no caching of those for use on other pages. Think of defining an external file as also a way to tell the browser "and this section of the site is reusable". You'd be taking that ability away and so the CSS and JS would load. Like jackwanders said it's great if you only have one page.
This is not a good idea for the following reasons:
You will not enjoy the benefit of cache
You will load unneeded resources in all of your pages
You will have a hard time while developing your website because of large files with unrelated code branches
If you work in a team you will have to work with your teammates on the same files always, which means that you will have a lot of merge conflicts.
You can have a single CSS for all your pages and since it will be cached, the subsequent pages will refer it from cache without sending extra request.
However, putting all Javascript files is into one is contextual.
Most probably you might be using libraries like jQuery, and relevant plugins. This 'might' throw conflicting issues between plugins. So, before you try it all at once, try merging few files at once and checking if the error pops or not.
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.
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.