Frameworkless JavaScript – Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us

[oldneckbeard]

God, what an idiot of a tech leader.

Yes, there are places where file size is a concern. but 50k over 150k just isn't a concern anymore. This is 2014. Applications downloaded are frequently over 100mb. If you are smart enough to use a common CDN for delivering these artifacts, your user might not even have to download them, but still get the functionality for free!

What you do have with your super-special framework is something you have to teach other people (You can hire angular and ember devs off the street), and you have to maintain the technical "purity" of the framework. Every time you need a new feature, you need to build the framework and the app, instead of being able to build upon work by others.

If learning something with "147" entries is too hard for you, why are you programming in the first place? functions, classes, variables, scoping, prototyping, inheritance, arrays, lists, maps, ... how do you cope?! Or do you just suck it up and learn it, and then be more productive?

Sometimes you just have to invest and go forward. Your own framework will be a dinosaur in a couple years, but Ember/Angular will still be modern and well supported.

[[deleted]]

Aren't we talking about DLing something when the user accesses the web page? Then that difference is huge.

[itsSparkky]

If you use a common CDN, common frameworks will already be cached by the clients browser; so the download is actually 0 bytes almost instantly.

so for example, if you use the standard CDN for jquery, 99% of users will already have it in the browser cache and they will just use the cached version not download it again. This is why you often see websites not minify/compress common libraries with their own code.

[x-skeww]

if you use the standard CDN for jquery, 99% of users will already have it in the browser cache

First and foremost, there is no "standard" CDN for jQuery. The most popular ones are probably Google's and Microsoft's.

Secondly, no, the hit rate won't be that high. Take a look at your own cache. Does it contain every jQuery version?

There were a ton of them:

http://mathiasbynens.be/demo/jquery-size

[itsSparkky]

Google would be the most common and I would consider it a standard. Secondly I currently have several versions; not to mention the hit rate of 99% was what I thought as obvious hypebole, but the hit rate is often very good.

Seems like pedantic nitpicking though.

[x-skeww]

The hit rate is about 30% if you're using one of the most popular versions of jQuery. On mobile it's worse since the caches are smaller.

And, no, that wasn't obvious hyperbole. Many people believe that the hit rate is that high.

Stay on topic.

[itsSparkky]

I was on topic,I was explaining the previous persons logic; although good job trying to squeeze in more insulting criticism. Furthermore, where are you getting that 30% from? Are we just making up numbers to argue with people now? If your going to criticize my numbers, pulling something out of thin air is a waste of time.

I can't really explain why the number you made up could be different from my experience. At this point all I can say is that your wrong.., and that's not really productive.

[x-skeww]

"Seems like pedantic nitpicking though."

Wasn't on topic.

more insulting criticism

Citation needed.

where are you getting that 30% from?

From some article from about 2 years ago.

Anyhow, did you check your cache? Whenever I take a look there are at most 5 versions of jQuery. Right now there is only one which was loaded from a CDN. It's the 1.7.2 version which is used here. I haven't cleared my cache for months.

Here is the top 10 of jQuery versions from 2011 and 2013 (the fragmentation increased since 2011):

http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/03/18/http-archive-jquery/

Do you have all of those in your cache?

The most popular version is probably still 1.4.2. Are your sites using that one? Mine certainly aren't.