Related
This is some front-end web development libraries that is most commonly used:
jquery-min.js (95.9 kB)
angular.min.js (108.0 kB)
bootstrap.min.css (113.5 kB)
bootstrap-theme.min.css (19.8 kB)
bootstrap-fonts (185.7 kB)
bootstrap.min.js (35.6 kB)
All together, this means + 558.5 kB to every page of our website. And few more server requests. So, is that all? Are there some more (performance or other) costs of using external libraries on our website?
Each library you include has both costs and benefits throughout the stack
Costs
time/latency (performance) to load and render
bandwidth to serve to clients, bandwidth to deploy if bundled
build time and file size if you are bundling these into your deployment package
complexity to understand, modify, debug
complexity required to prove that a given CSS rule is in fact not involved
memory to load into your page
Benefits
generally more correct and complete implementations (like bootstrap's accessibility)
re-use of existing solutions, shorter development time
guided toward consistent structures and away from ad-hoc messes
better and easier APIs (vanilla XHR vs $http.get, etc)
Given your specific examples, in general if you are using angular you should not need jQuery and should avoid it. You can also cherry-pick only the portions of bootstrap your site actually uses or only the ui.bootstrap angular directives you actually use.
Thankfully, that 558.5kB only hits a maximum of 1 time (as long as you don't change domains or change SSL encryption between sites). After those files are first downloaded, it's on the client to load them from the cache.
As #Felix Kling suggested, if you pull them from a CDN, it's very likely you can turn that 1-time hit to a 0-time hit because the client already downloaded them from some other website. This is important to think about if you're considering baking in the bootstrap css with your custom css file. It could be faster to let bootstrap come from the CDN (or the local cache) and load your custom stuff on top.
Performance for snagging the files won't be that big of a deal, as modern browsers have no problems quickly pulling 6 files. However, the browser has to load all that junk into memory, which is where the real hit comes in. This is because, for instance, you have to load jquery before you can call jquery. Therefore, all your on-page scripts are going to be waiting for jquery to load until they act.
Without more information it is hard to say anything tangible, however using libraries is usually a tradeoff between the ease of development and performance. Some of the libraries may perform worse, than "native" JavaScript solutions, but provide more easily maintainable code.
So it is useful to test the website for potential bottlenecks in the JavaScript code, sometimes there is a valid reason to fall back to vanilla JavaScript, instead of higher level abstractions (and nicer code).
Another result of using JavaScript libraries can be, that the website will no longer function without disable JavaScript at all - this should be considered sometimes.
PS: One simple optimization is putting all JavaScript into a bundle, and minimizing it to reach the lowest possible load cost. CDNs should be also considered.
What is the recommended best-practice for breaking up and including multiple files?
It makes sense for me to break up scripts into their own .js files in a /modules/.. folder. In a sort of OOP mentality that separates functionality. However, this causes more http requests to my web host.
Each one is only a few kb. Is it noticeably inefficient to have multiple files? I also looked into head.js and script.js but it seems like over-kill.
Basically, is it considered a bad practice to divide up javascript into separate files and load them individually, or is there a better method?
There is no hard and fast answer to this question. Each developer or team of developers will find something that works best for them.
Personally, I break up script files into logical chunks for development. When it comes to deploying the application, I combine and minify all scripts into a single file (I'm a ASP.NET MVC guy so I use their bundling mechanism in version 4 for that).
Basicly there is not a lot of difference between the two options. Just don't forget to add the script tags just before the end of your body tag for the sake of performance and keep programming as you like.
When it comes to web, maintainability usually trumps raw speed. What this means is, you're probably better off including 5 or 6 JS files than 1 if that makes your code more maintainable.
Of course, if on the production side, you really need to make every clock cycle and every KB of bandwidth count, you can minify your JS, CSS and PHP in order to make that happen. Most of us don't really need this level of performance even on production sites, so we stick with what's more maintainable and easier to update.
I recently started working with a large code base with many (15-20) js requests per page. I'm tasked with optimization and performance improvement of these sites.
I've been using tools like Google's PageSpeed and Yahoo's YSlow in conjunction with WebPageTest.org's tests to determine a baseline speed of the site and area of improvement. I'm curious if there are some standard or best-practice solutions for concatenation and minification of JS and CSS files.
I watched: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_AIEhar-I and the first 20 minutes were really good at hammering mod_pagespeed as a good target.
I'm currently considering mod_pagespeed with a YUI compressor and perhaps a sprite generator on top of it all.
What are some good tools that I may have missed or things that I should be concerned about with my current build?
Edit: It should be noted that this is one page of many (possibly hundreds) and the site receives a new build every two weeks so being able to automate this concatenation and minification is a must, I can't just do it once and call it good.
Edit 7/30/2012 -
I spent some time looking at different tools, it's hard to say which ones are the best but at this time, not very many people use mod_page speed.
Closure is more widely used for certain, but even that is lacking. It seems the optimal way to do this is to just use a plugin with YUI.
There are other places that suggest Packer but it seems that many believe the smaller file sizes are eliminated by the necessity to unpack them on the client machine. This stackoverflow response is a good read regarding these types of tools.
Google's Closure Compiler is quite nice for concatenating and minifying JavaScript. It has the added bonus of linting your code for you when you compile, it will remove dead code, and it can also perform compile-time type checking if you include type hints in docblocks.
In certain cases, the dead code removal feature gives Closure a huge advantage over other minifiers... for example, think of cases where you include a library, but only use about 10% of the functionality. The other 90% can be removed if you compress the library along with the rest of the project.
As for CSS, YUI compressor is probably your best bet if you want something fancy. Otherwise, you could just concatenate the files together using cat and take the hit of a few extra bytes from whitespace.
There are different JavaScript frameworks like jQuery, Dojo, mooTools, Google Web Toolkit(GWT), YUI, etc.
Which one from this is suitable for high performance websites?
(Full disclaimer: I am a Dojo developer and this is my unofficial perspective).
All major libraries can be used in high load scenarios. There are several things to consider:
Initial load
The initial load affects your response time: from requesting a web page to being responsive and in working mode. Trivial things to do are:
concatenate several JavaScript files together (works for CSS files too)
minimize and/or compress your JavaScript
The idea is to send less — good for the server, and good for the client.
The less trivial thing to do:
structure your program in such a way so it is operational without all modules loaded
Example of the latter: divide your modules into essential (e.g., the core logic), and non-essential (e.g., helpers: tooltips, hints, verifiers, help facilities, various "gradual enhancers", and so on). The idea is that frequently there are things which are not important for frequent users, but nice for casual users ⇒ they can be delayed.
We can load essential modules first and load the rest asynchronously. Example: if user wants to edit an object we need to show it first, after that we have several hundred milliseconds to load the rest: lookup tables, hints, and so on.
Obviously it helps when asynchronous loading of modules is supported by the framework you use. Dojo has this facility built-in.
Distribute files
Everybody knows that due to browser restrictions on number of parallel downloads from the same site it is beneficial to load resources (images, CSS, JavaScript) from different domains:
we can download more in parallel, if user's line has enough bandwidth — these days it is almost always true
we can set up web servers optimized for serving static files: huge disk cache, small workers, keep-alive, async serving, and so on
we can remove all unnecessary features we don't need when serving static files: sessions, cookies, and so on
One frequently overlooked optimization in JavaScript applications is to use CDN:
your web site can benefit from the geographical distribution of CDN (files can be served from the closest/fastest server)
user may have required files in her cache, if they were used by other application
intermediate/corporate caches increase the probability that required files are already cached
the last but not least: these are files that you don't serve — think about it
Again, Dojo supports CDNs for a long time and distributed publicly by AOL CDN and Google CDN. The latter carries practically all popular JavaScript toolkits too. Obviously you can create your own CDN and your very own CDN- and app- specific Dojo build, if you feel you need it — it is trivial and well documented.
Communication bandwidth
How that can be different for different toolkits? XHR is XHR.
You need to reduce the load on your servers as much as possible. Analyze all traffic and consider how much static/immutable stuff is sent over the pipe. For example, typically a lot of HTML is redundant across several pages: a header, a footer, a menu, and so on. Do you really need all of these to be sent over every time?
One obvious solution is to move from static HTML + "gradual enhancements" with JavaScript to real "one page" JavaScript applications. Again, this is a frequently overlooked, but the most rewarding optimization.
While the idea sounds easy, in reality it is not as simple as it seems. As soon as we go from one-liners to apps we have a plethora of questions, and the biggest of them is the packaging: what your components are, what components are provided by the toolkit, and how to package and deliver them.
Dojo provides modules, good OOP for general classes, widgets (a combination of an optional HTML and related behaviors), and a lot of facilities to work with them. You can:
load modules on demand rather than in the head
load modules asynchronously
find all dependencies between modules automatically and create a "build" — one file in simple cases, or more, if your app is big and requires several layers
while doing the "build" it can inline all HTML snippets for your widgets, optimize CSS, and minify/compress JavaScript
Dojo can automatically find and instantiate widgets in HTML saving a lot of boilerplate code
and much much more
All these features help greatly when building applications on the client side. That's why I like Dojo.
Obviously there are more ways to optimize high load web sites but according to my practice these are the most specific for JavaScript frameworks.
Quite simply: all of them.
All frameworks have been built in order to provide the fastest performance possible and provide the developers with useful functions and tools. Your choice should be based on your requirements.
JavaScript runs on the client-side, so none will affect your server performance. The only difference server-side is the amount of bandwidth used to transfer the .js files to the client.
I'm personally fond of MooTools because it answers my requirements and also sticks to my coding ideals. A lot of people adopted jQuery (I personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's not great). I haven't used the other ones.
But none is better than the other, it's all a question of requirements and personal preference.
I do not really think it makes a bit of difference. The big ones seem to use a mixture of Jquery & prototype along with others.
Quite frankly, it makes no difference what you use for heavily visited websites as we are talking about client technologies. After the file is loaded, there are not really any overheads. So, if you just want to do one simple thing and multiple frameworks support it, use whatever one has the smaller file size (of course, if it performs really bad, use another!)
This being said, google hosts a lot of the frameworks, so even this is really a non issue. I use Jquery hosted by Google and am very happy.
http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/
Backend and what the server should be using is a whole different question where you will get a thousand different answers!
I'd recommend you look into Dojo.
Dojo 1.6 is also the first (and only) popular JavaScript Library that can be successfully used with the Closure Compiler's Advanced mode, with the massive size, performance and obfuscation benefits attached to it -- other than Google's own Closure Library, that is.
http://dojo-toolkit.33424.n3.nabble.com/file/n2636749/Using_the_Dojo_Toolkit_with_the_Closure_Compiler.pdf?by-user=t
In other words, a program using Dojo can be 100% obfuscated -- even the library itself.
Compiled code has exactly the same behavior as plain-text code, except that it is much smaller (average 25% over minifiers), runs much faster (especially on mobile devices), and almost impossible to reverse-engineer, even after passing through a beautifier, because the entire code base (including the library) is obfuscated.
Code that is only "minified" (e.g. YUI compressor, Uglify) can be easily reverse-engineered after passing through a beautifier.
Well - as an example stackoverflow relies on jQuery ( and uses the google apis link ) - it's one of the speediest and most popular libraries and not only that but I'd say it's the easiest to use. What type of behavior are you going to have on the site? It really all depends on your needs.
The answer, as always, is: it depends. What kind of performance are you talking about? Download speed? Use a minimiser and there's probably not a lot of difference. Or client-side performance, and what are you doing with it?
But, I would suggest that if you're after raw performance, I would not use a framework at all, and create low level javascript that will be far more difficult to maintain.
Some good information can be found on the YUI site.
As other answers already explained, the framework's not going to be the bottleneck in your site's performance -- rather, many other factors are. If you use popular frameworks and load them from popular URLs for them (e.g. AOL's or Google's) they're likely to be cached in your users' browsers, so you don't have to worry much about that, either.
If you care at all about performance, however, absolutely DO check out Steve Souders; work -- including both of his books, "High Performance Web Sites" and "Even Faster Web Sites".
I'm biased, as Steve is a friend and a colleague (and we share publishers as well), but I praised and admired his work even before we met in person and became colleagues -- I'm mostly a back-end person, as he used to be, so I just can't help admire somebody who, coming from the same background, had the integrity and courage to switch almost entirely to front-end focus as he realized THAT was by far the bottleneck for user-perceived performance (i.e., somebody who had the gumption to put user experience first, something we all pay homage to, of course, but don't always practice, when that "overriding priority" gets in the way of our own professional specialties, interests and skills...).
I would like to know when I should include external scripts or write them inline with the html code, in terms of performance and ease of maintenance.
What is the general practice for this?
Real-world-scenario - I have several html pages that need client-side form validation. For this I use a jQuery plugin that I include on all these pages. But the question is, do I:
write the bits of code that configure this script inline?
include all bits in one file that's share among all these html pages?
include each bit in a separate external file, one for each html page?
Thanks.
At the time this answer was originally posted (2008), the rule was simple: All script should be external. Both for maintenance and performance.
(Why performance? Because if the code is separate, it can easier be cached by browsers.)
JavaScript doesn't belong in the HTML code and if it contains special characters (such as <, >) it even creates problems.
Nowadays, web scalability has changed. Reducing the number of requests has become a valid consideration due to the latency of making multiple HTTP requests. This makes the answer more complex: in most cases, having JavaScript external is still recommended. But for certain cases, especially very small pieces of code, inlining them into the site’s HTML makes sense.
Maintainability is definitely a reason to keep them external, but if the configuration is a one-liner (or in general shorter than the HTTP overhead you would get for making those files external) it's performance-wise better to keep them inline. Always remember, that each HTTP request generates some overhead in terms of execution time and traffic.
Naturally this all becomes irrelevant the moment your code is longer than a couple of lines and is not really specific to one single page. The moment you want to be able to reuse that code, make it external. If you don't, look at its size and decide then.
If you only care about performance, most of advice in this thread is flat out wrong, and is becoming more and more wrong in the SPA era, where we can assume that the page is useless without the JS code. I've spent countless hours optimizing SPA page load times, and verifying these results with different browsers. Across the board the performance increase by re-orchestrating your html, can be quite dramatic.
To get the best performance, you have to think of pages as two-stage rockets. These two stages roughly correspond to <head> and <body> phases, but think of them instead as <static> and <dynamic>. The static portion is basically a string constant which you shove down the response pipe as fast as you possibly can. This can be a little tricky if you use a lot of middleware that sets cookies (these need to be set before sending http content), but in principle it's just flushing the response buffer, hopefully before jumping into some templating code (razor, php, etc) on the server. This may sound difficult, but then I'm just explaining it wrong, because it's near trivial. As you may have guessed, this static portion should contain all javascript inlined and minified. It would look something like
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<script>/*...inlined jquery, angular, your code*/</script>
<style>/* ditto css */</style>
</head>
<body>
<!-- inline all your templates, if applicable -->
<script type='template-mime' id='1'></script>
<script type='template-mime' id='2'></script>
<script type='template-mime' id='3'></script>
Since it costs you next to nothing to send this portion down the wire, you can expect that the client will start receiving this somewhere around 5ms + latency after connecting to your server. Assuming the server is reasonably close this latency could be between 20ms to 60ms. Browsers will start processing this section as soon as they get it, and the processing time will normally dominate transfer time by factor 20 or more, which is now your amortized window for server-side processing of the <dynamic> portion.
It takes about 50ms for the browser (chrome, rest maybe 20% slower) to process inline jquery + signalr + angular + ng animate + ng touch + ng routes + lodash. That's pretty amazing in and of itself. Most web apps have less code than all those popular libraries put together, but let's say you have just as much, so we would win latency+100ms of processing on the client (this latency win comes from the second transfer chunk). By the time the second chunk arrives, we've processed all js code and templates and we can start executing dom transforms.
You may object that this method is orthogonal to the inlining concept, but it isn't. If you, instead of inlining, link to cdns or your own servers the browser would have to open another connection(s) and delay execution. Since this execution is basically free (as the server side is talking to the database) it must be clear that all of these jumps would cost more than doing no jumps at all. If there were a browser quirk that said external js executes faster we could measure which factor dominates. My measurements indicate that extra requests kill performance at this stage.
I work a lot with optimization of SPA apps. It's common for people to think that data volume is a big deal, while in truth latency, and execution often dominate. The minified libraries I listed add up to 300kb of data, and that's just 68 kb gzipped, or 200ms download on a 2mbit 3g/4g phone, which is exactly the latency it would take on the same phone to check IF it had the same data in its cache already, even if it was proxy cached, because the mobile latency tax (phone-to-tower-latency) still applies. Meanwhile, desktop connections that have lower first-hop latency typically have higher bandwidth anyway.
In short, right now (2014), it's best to inline all scripts, styles and templates.
EDIT (MAY 2016)
As JS applications continue to grow, and some of my payloads now stack up to 3+ megabytes of minified code, it's becoming obvious that at the very least common libraries should no longer be inlined.
Externalizing javascript is one of the yahoo performance rules:
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#external
While the hard-and-fast rule that you should always externalize scripts will generally be a good bet, in some cases you may want to inline some of the scripts and styles. You should however only inline things that you know will improve performance (because you've measured this).
i think the specific to one page, short script case is (only) defensible case for inline script
Actually, there's a pretty solid case to use inline javascript. If the js is small enough (one-liner), I tend to prefer the javascript inline because of two factors:
Locality. There's no need to navigate an external file to validate the behaviour of some javascript
AJAX. If you're refreshing some section of the page via AJAX, you may lose all of your DOM handlers (onclick, etc) for that section, depending on how you binded them. For example, using jQuery you can either use the live or delegate methods to circumvent this, but I find that if the js is small enough it is preferrable to just put it inline.
Another reason why you should always use external scripts is for easier transition to Content Security Policy (CSP). CSP defaults forbid all inline script, making your site more resistant to XSS attacks.
I would take a look at the required code and divide it into as many separate files as needed. Every js file would only hold one "logical set" of functions etc. eg. one file for all login related functions.
Then during site developement on each html page you only include those that are needed.
When you go live with your site you can optimize by combining every js file a page needs into one file.
The only defense I can offer for inline javascipt is that when using strongly typed views with .net MVC you can refer to c# variables mid javascript which I've found useful.
On the point of keeping JavaScript external:
ASP.NET 3.5SP1 recently introduced functionality to create a Composite script resource (merge a bunch of js files into one). Another benefit to this is when Webserver compression is turned on, downloading one slightly larger file will have a better compression ratio then many smaller files (also less http overhead, roundtrip etc...). I guess this saves on the initial page load, then browser caching kicks in as mentioned above.
ASP.NET aside, this screencast explains the benefits in more detail:
http://www.asp.net/learn/3.5-SP1/video-296.aspx
Three considerations:
How much code do you need (sometimes libraries are a first-class consumer)?
Specificity: is this code only functional in the context of this specific document or element?
Every code inside the document tends to make it longer and thus slower. Besides that SEO considerations make it obvious, that you minimize internal scripting ...
External scripts are also easier to debug using Firebug. I like to Unit Test my JavaScript and having it all external helps. I hate seeing JavaScript in PHP code and HTML it looks like a big mess to me.
Another hidden benefit of external scripts is that you can easily run them through a syntax checker like jslint. That can save you from a lot of heartbreaking, hard-to-find, IE6 bugs.
In your scenario it sounds like writing the external stuff in one file shared among the pages would be good for you. I agree with everything said above.
During early prototyping keep your code inline for the benefit of fast iteration, but be sure to make it all external by the time you reach production.
I'd even dare to say that if you can't place all your Javascript externally, then you have a bad design under your hands, and you should refactor your data and scripts
Google has included load times into it's page ranking measurements, if you inline a lot, it will take longer for the spiders to crawl thru your page, this may be influence your page ranking if you have to much included. in any case different strategies may have influence on your ranking.
well I think that you should use inline when making single page websites as scripts will not need to be shared across multiple pages
Having internal JS pros:
It's easier to manage & debug
You can see what's happening
Internal JS cons:
People can change it around, which really can annoy you.
external JS pros:
no changing around
you can look more professional (or at least that's what I think)
external JS cons:
harder to manage
its hard to know what's going on.
Always try to use external Js as inline js is always difficult to maintain.
Moreover, it is professionally required that you use an external js since majority of the developers recommend using js externally.
I myself use external js.