This seems like the classic compile-time run-time trade off. On the one hand it does indeed appear to take a while to load the page. The upside of this though is obviously smooth scrolling for very large presentations of data. Since the sort of use-case this kind of table would be used for could potentially be long and drawn out this trade off becomes totally reasonable in my opinnion.
True, but perhaps more could be done to trim the fat. There are quite a lot of dependencies, and jQuery UI is quite a large library. Am on my phone so can't dig down to see how necessary it is but I'd hope the authors will be able to streamline the dependencies in the future
Comments
500kb transferred? 2 seconds to load all the CSS and JS files? 4.5 seconds to load everything?
Way too much overhead for a static page, IMO.
This seems like the classic compile-time run-time trade off. On the one hand it does indeed appear to take a while to load the page. The upside of this though is obviously smooth scrolling for very large presentations of data. Since the sort of use-case this kind of table would be used for could potentially be long and drawn out this trade off becomes totally reasonable in my opinnion.
True, but perhaps more could be done to trim the fat. There are quite a lot of dependencies, and jQuery UI is quite a large library. Am on my phone so can't dig down to see how necessary it is but I'd hope the authors will be able to streamline the dependencies in the future