Large/lots of javascript files can slow down the loading of the page, but that wasn't the real issue people were taking with JS-controlled sites (as I interpreted things).
The real delay cost was from the inevitable redirect to the root of the website. When you visit domain.com/user-name, a JS-controlled site will usually redirect you to domain.com#!/user-name, and then loading up the page. There is no avoiding this unless you want really ugly urls: domain.com/user-name#!/user-name...
So large JS files might increase the load speed slightly, but adding an entire redirect is the kicker.
Like most things, there's a time and a place. Using hashbang urls can increase response-time when navigating through a site and provide a really cool experience. On the other hand, it definitely doesn't work for all browsers and users.
On slower devices (such as mobile phones) redirecting can be more noticeable. You're right though, in general it's not really a problem, but might be more so than a larger-than-normal JS file.
> Large JS files only need to be downloaded once and are cached.
Yeah, I was trying to say that. Larger JS files aren't a problem at all; load them once and they're cached.
Comments
Large/lots of javascript files can slow down the loading of the page, but that wasn't the real issue people were taking with JS-controlled sites (as I interpreted things).
The real delay cost was from the inevitable redirect to the root of the website. When you visit domain.com/user-name, a JS-controlled site will usually redirect you to domain.com#!/user-name, and then loading up the page. There is no avoiding this unless you want really ugly urls: domain.com/user-name#!/user-name...
So large JS files might increase the load speed slightly, but adding an entire redirect is the kicker.
Like most things, there's a time and a place. Using hashbang urls can increase response-time when navigating through a site and provide a really cool experience. On the other hand, it definitely doesn't work for all browsers and users.
Such a redirect isn't slow? It's near instant if done right. Here's twitter doing it: http://twitter.com/bjorntipling
It's absolutely super fast for me. How is that a 'kicker'?
Large JS files only need to be downloaded once and are cached.
There's no problem here.
> Such a redirect isn't slow? It's near instant if done right. Here's twitter doing it: http://twitter.com/bjorntipling
On slower devices (such as mobile phones) redirecting can be more noticeable. You're right though, in general it's not really a problem, but might be more so than a larger-than-normal JS file.
> Large JS files only need to be downloaded once and are cached.
Yeah, I was trying to say that. Larger JS files aren't a problem at all; load them once and they're cached.