Comments on: Gmail Mobile team talks Latency and Code Loading

By: morrisj

morrisj — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:03:42 +0000

I find that the

is reached. Kind of like ”’ in Python, or the perl <<’EOL’ i.e. everything inside the XMP becomes text *even* if there is HTML inside.

By: j5

j5 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:50:20 +0000

@WebReflection they want to include things that may not actually be executed as well, so that they can preload their entire app into the browser’s offline cache. The scripts should probably be at the end of the page regardless.

By: Les

Les — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:14:59 +0000

>> I never use eval, it’s very slow on FF
@Stakka – unless you still use older FF, eval is faster.
http://weblogs.asp.net/yuanjian/archive/2009/03/22/json-performance-comparison-of-eval-new-function-and-json.aspx

By: Darkimmortal

Darkimmortal — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:53:54 +0000

@Stakka

new Function(jsCode)();

Thanks for the tip :)

By: ExtAnimal

ExtAnimal — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:49:16 +0000

Getting round the problem that the browser waits for evaluation of script elements which are in the document head?

Put the script element at the bottom of the body.

By: WebReflection

WebReflection — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:21:31 +0000

@Stakka Firebug shows evaluated stuff in a dedicated panel, wrapping native eval, that is why it could result that slower. Try to disable Firebug but I agree in any case ’cause for this stuff we do not want internal scope conflicts, but possibly a global one.

By: WebReflection

WebReflection — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:19:17 +0000

makes sense, but I wonder if we could make this a bit more standard suggesting, as example, namespaces in ids in order to include incrementally if necessary.
(function(w){


// require

function require() {

    for(var

        i = 0, length = arguments.length,

        n = w, s, split;

        i < length; ++i

    ){

        split = arguments[i].split(".");

        do {

            if(!n[s = split.shift()])

                eval(

                    document

                    .getElementById(s)

                        .innerHTML

                        .replace(

                            /^[\r\n]+|\*\/\s*$/g,

                            ""

                        )

                )()

            ;

            n = n[s];

        } while(split.length);

    };

};

// global scope ... var eval = w.Function; })(this);
In this example we could use
require(“jQuery.plugin.whatEver”); whenever we need the jQuery plugin whatever and the evaluation will be for jQuery, present so skipped, jQuery.plugin, hopefully present as object, and the script node with id jQuery.plugin.whatEver with
/* this is my whatEver plugin
… plugin code …
*/

In few words, this is a good hint, but if everybody will start to implement a different lazy evaluator we’ll have soon portability and conflicts problems (as is right now with certain libraries)

By: Stakka

Stakka — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:05:53 +0000

I never use eval, it’s very slow on FF. Instead do:

new Function(jsCode)();

By: PeteB

PeteB — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Wouldn’t it be easier to just use some kind of custom type attribute on the script tag so the browser doesn’t parse it?