Peterbe.com

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out which Javascript script loading framework to use. RequireJS or HeadJS. I still don't have an answer. Neither website refers to each other.

In general

• To me, it's important to be able to load and execute some Javascript before downloading Javascript modules that aren't needed to render the initial screen. Makes for a more responsive behaviour and gets pixels drawn quicker for Javascript-heavy sites.
• An understated, massive, benefit to combining multiple .js files into one is sporadic network bottlenecks. Fewer files to download and fewer things can go wrong. These bottlenecks can make a few Kb of a Javascript file take 10 seconds to download.
• Public CDNs (e.g. jQuery from Google's CDN) is an extremely powerful optimization technique. Not only are they extremely fast, it's very likely they're preloaded because some other site uses the exact same URL.
• Where does it say that Javascript has to be loaded in the head? Even html5-boilerplate loads Javascript just before the </body> tag.
• Realistically, in the real world, it's not uncommon that you can't combine all .js files into one. This is not true for web apps that consists of just one HTML file. One page might require A.js, B.js and C.js but another page requires A.js, B.js and D.js. Requires manual thinking whether you should combine A,B,C,D.js or A,B.js + C|D.js. No framework can predict this.
• All loading and browser incompatibility hacks will eventually become obsolete as browsers catch up. Again, requires manual thinking because supporting and ultra-boosting performance might have a different cost today compared to a year from now. The most guilty of this appears to be ControlJS
• I'm confident that optimization in terms of file concatenation and white space optimization does not belong to the framework.
• Apparently iPhone 3.x series can't cache individual files larger than 15Kb (25Kb for iPhone 4.x). That's a very small about if you combine several large modules.
• Accepting the fact of life that sporadic network bottlenecks can kill your page, think hard about asynchronous loading and preserved order. Perhaps ideal is a mix of both. What framework allows that? (both RequireJS and HeadJS it seems)
• Loading frameworks are not for everything and everyone. If you're building something "simple" or landing page like Google's search page frameworks might just get in your way.

RequireJS

• Author well known but his Dojoesque style shines through in RequireJS's syntax and patterns.
• Is only about Javascript. No CSS hacks or other html5ish boilerplates.
• Gets into the realm of module definitions. Neat but do you want the loading framework to get involved in how you prefer to write your code or do you just want it to load your files?
• All the module definition stuff feels excessive for every single project I can imagine but we're entering an era of "web apps" (as opposed to "web sites") so this might need to change.
• What you learn in using RequireJS you can reuse when building NodeJS (a server-side framework). It's also possible to use RequireJS in Rhino (server-side Javascript engine) but personally I haven't reached that level yet.

HeadJS

• Author relatively unknown. quite well known too. Author also of Flowplayer and jQuery Tools.
• Contains a kitchen sink (CSS tricks, modernizer.js) but perhaps they're really quite useful. After all, you don't write your web site in Assembly.
• There's a fork of HeadJS that does just the Javascript stuff. But will it be maintained? And does that defeat the whole point of using HeadJS?
• With its CSS hacks (aka. kitchen sink) HeadJS seems great if you really care about combining HTML5 techniques with Internet Explorer.
• This awesome experiment shows that HeadJS really works and that asynchronous loading can be really powerful. But ask yourself, are you ready to build in an asynchronous way?
• With HeadJS I can label a combined and optimized bundle and load my code once that bundle is loaded. Can I do that with RequireJS? It seems to depend on the filename (minus the .js suffix).
• Makes the assumption that just because a file is loaded the order of execution is a non-issue. This means you might have trouble controlling dependencies during execution. This is a grey area that might or might not matter depending on the complexity of your app.
• A feeling I get is that HeadJS without the CSS kitchen sink stuff reduces to become LabJS or EnhanceJS.

Other alternatives

The ones I can think of are: ControlJS (feels too "hacky" for my taste), CommonJS (not sufficiently "in-browser specific" for my taste) and EnhanceJS (like HeadJS and LabJS but with less power/features)

The one I haven't studied as much is LabJS. It seems more similar to HeadJS in style. Perhaps it deserves more attention but the reason HeadJS got my attention is because it's got a better looking website.

In conclusion

You mileage will vary. The deeper I look into this I feel personal taste comes into play. It's hard enough for a single framework other to write realistic benchmarks; even harder for "evalutators" like myself to benchmark them all. It gets incrementally harder when you take into account the effects of http latency, sporadic network bottlenecks, browser garbage collection and user experience.

Personally I think HeadJS is a smoother transition for general web sites. RequireJS might be more appropriate when write web apps with virtually no HTML and a single URL.

With the risk of starting a war... If you're a Rails/Django/Plone head, consider HeadJS. If you're a mobile web app/NodeJS head consider RequireJS.

UPDATE

Sorry, I now realise that Tero Piirainen actually has built a fair amount of powerful Javascript libraries.

A classic blunder in Javascript client side apps is heavy use of the incredibly useful Firebug feature that is console.log() and then forgetting to remove any such debugging and thus causing Javascript errors for people without Firebug. To remedy this use this little nifty function:

function log() {
  if (window.console && window.console.log)
  for (var i = 0, l = arguments.length; i < l; i++)
    console.log(arguments[i]);
}

That way you can do plenty of debugging and if you accidentally leave a logging line in your code it won't break anything even if they don't have Firebug installed/enabled. Also you can easily "annotate" your debugging by writing two things in one line. Like this:

function foo(bar) {
   log("bar is:", bar);
   return bar * 2;
}

I was happily using Jörn Zaefferer's jQuery autocomplete plugin but then I found out that it had been deprecated and I should instead use the jQuery UI's autocomplete plugin instead.

After "upgrading" I started getting suspicious. Is it actually worse than the old one?

I had a piece of code that looked like this:

function add_to_form(f, all_day) {
  console.log(all_day);
  if (all_day)
    $('input[name="all_day"]', f).val('1');
  else;
    $('input[name="all_day"]', f).val('');
  console.log($('input[name="all_day"]', f).val(''));
  return f; 
}

When I ran it, the console output was this:

true
(an empty string)

What had happened was that I had accidentally put a semi-colon after the else statement. Accidentally as in stumbled on the keyboard. I didn't spot it because semi-colons are so common in JavaScript that you sort of go blind to them.

The wart was that it didn't cause a syntax error. IMHO it should have because you'd expect there to always be something happening after the else.

So instead of using the shortcut notation for if statements I've decided to write it out in full instead:

function add_to_form(f, all_day) {
  if (all_day) {
     $('input[name="all_day"]', f).val('1');
  } else {
     $('input[name="all_day"]', f).val('');
  }
  return f; 
}

Optimizers like Google Closure will do a much better job optimizing the code than I ever will anyway.

And by "dangerous" I mean super slow to the point of making your browser shake of over exhaustion.

I have a big fat table where on the left hand side of each row there's a little toggle to open up an initially hidden sub-table. And there are toggles for those sub-tables to open up further sub-tables. It might sound complicated but it works great. The code for each toggle looks something like this:

$('a.toggle-order-on').click(function() {
   var tbody_parent = $(this).parents('tbody');

   $('tr.printdisplay:hidden', tbody_parent).show();
   $('tr.outdoor-marketing:hidden', tbody_parent).show();
   $('tr.digital:hidden', tbody_parent).show();

   // expand the little table too
   $('a.toggle-printdisplay-on', tbody_parent).click();

   var td_parent = $(this).parents('td');
   $(this).hide();
   $('a.toggle-order-off:hidden', td_parent).show();

   return false;
});

Note the heavy use of the super useful :hidden selector which is basically a reversing wrapper on the :visisble selector

What I then needed was a way to open up every single row in the whole table with one click. Here was the code I wrote:

$('a.toggle-order-on:visible').trigger('click');

See? Makes sense does it?

Problem with this was that when the table was big sometimes clicking this would make my otherwise fast browser (Chrome or Firefox) stutter and sometimes stall or at worst the alert pop-up about "a script is slowing this page down" would appear.

So I started the Firebug Profiler and clicked a couple of times and collected some numbers. On average it took 3-4.5 seconds!! and about 20,000-35,000 calls to complete the full expansion. Yikes! About 90% of the time spent by jQuery was on the visisble() function.

Solution: Instead of using the click trigger I simply just called the .show() effect on all things manually without using any :visible or :hidden operators. Here's the new code:

$('tr.printdisplay').show();
$('tr.outdoor-marketing').show();
$('tr.digital').show();
$('tr.printdisplaydetail').show();

$('a.toggle-order-off').show();
$('a.toggle-order-on').hide();

$('a.toggle-printdisplay-off').show();
$('a.toggle-printdisplay-on').hide();

This time, with the profile again, I it took on average 0.2-0.3 seconds and required about 2000-4000 calls. HUGE difference.

So, remember that next time. Don't just re-use working code en mass if it's using a much of :visible or :hidden selectors somewhere in there.

I'm brand spanking new to the node.js web application development. The framework I'm currently using is express which seems OK. So I've got an app that consists of 1 static HTML file, a lot of Javscript/CSS/image resources and some express GET and POST views that return small snippets of HTML. All data will be loaded with AJAX to avoid having to use any HTML templating on first load. What's cool about this is that it's soo fast! Everything except the JSON data can be loaded from an Nginx server.

At the moment I've got a light static HTML page that loads about 240Kb of Javascript and CSS (jQuery UI is big) and a couple of bytes of JSON data pulled from Node. As a little anal perfectionism I put an Nginx server in front so that Node doesn't have to serve any of the static files. To get that you have to have a Nginx site enabled that looks like this:

server {
   root /home/peterbe/task-calendar/static;
   location / {
     if (-f $request_filename) {
         add_header X-Static hit;
         access_log   off;
     }
     if (!-f $request_filename) {
         proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8000; # where Node is running
         add_header X-Static miss;
     }
   }
}

I think much of the fun of working with this app is that it's a delight to see it load in the browser without any sluggishness or delay. Lovely!

This murdered a good half hour of my time splattered with lots of alert() statements to debug. Basically, in Firefox you can do this:

var word = "Peter";
alert(word[1]); // "e" in Firefox, undefined in IE

This is the wrong way to get to character in a string in Javascript. The correct way is to use charAt() like this:

var word = "Peter";
alert(word.charAt(1)); // "e" in Firefox and IE

I don't know about the other browsers but finally Crosstips.org now works in IE7 too. I haven't even looked at it in IE6 and don't intend to either.

For the performance interested jQuery users please check out this thread

For the impatient, read Stephens reply He benchmarked what I asked and concluded that $("p", $("#foo")) is much faster in jQuery 1.3.2. I've been coding this style in jQuery for all recent projects so I'm happy with this outcome.

UPDATE

John Resig himself joined in on the discussion and had this to say:

"You should always use $("#foo").find("p") in favor of $("p", $("#foo")) - the second one ends up executing $(...) 3 times total - only to arrive at the same result as doing $("#foo").find("p")."

UPDATE 2

Not only did John join in on the discussion but it also made him work on jQuery 1.3.3 (not yet released at the time of writing) so that it doesn't matter which format you use you get the same performance. See the benchmark here

Dear Lazyweb,

Is there a better method than this to format numeric amounts? Here's a solution I picked up from somewhere and slightly modified. It's heavily string based but passed the tests:

function format_amount(i) {
  if(isNaN(i)) { i = 0.00; }
  var minus = '';
  if(i < 0) { minus = '-'; }
  i = Math.abs(i);
  i = parseInt((i + .005) * 100);
  i = i / 100;
  s = new String(i);
  if(s.indexOf('.') < 0) { s += '.00'; }
  if(s.indexOf('.') == (s.length - 2)) { s += '0'; }
  s = minus + s;
  return s;
}

The "tests" are:

format_amount(100)       == "100.00";
format_amount(100.0)     == "100.00";
format_amount(100.05)    == "100.05";
format_amount(100.051)   == "100.05";
format_amount(-100)      == "-100.00";
format_amount(-100.0)    == "-100.00";
format_amount(-123.45)   == "-123.45";
format_amount(-123.450)  == "-123.45";

So functionally it's OK but I'm not sure it's the best way to do it.

This took me some seriously wasted time to figure out yesterday. What I was trying to do was to create a DOM element of tag type A and insert it into the DOM tree of my page. As I was coding along, everything was working just fine in Firefox but the damn thing wouldn't show up anywhere in IE 6. I debugged and debugged and tried all kinds of different approaches and I just couldn't work it out. Then Karl Rudd gave the right hint on the jQuery mailing list.

Basically, what I was doing was something like this:

var a = $("<a>").attr('href','#').click(somefunction);
$('#toolbar').append(a);

What was then so strange is now less surprising. When I changed the <a> to a <span> it actually worked but just looked wrong with the rest of the site I was working on. Here's the correct way of doing it:

var a = $("<a></a>").attr('href','#').click(somefunction);
$('#toolbar').append(a);

Notice the difference between <a> and <a></a>. The strange thing is that to reproduce this I created this test.html page but here I noticed that in IE 6 it won't let you add any elements that are enclosing ones that are written as singulars. That's really strange since in the same javascript as the above stuff I did a $("<div>") which was working fine. I'll have to get back to figuring out why that one worked nad the A one didn't.