There is also a limit to the number of files the browser can download in parallel, so if many files have to be fetched, they have to wait until the previous downloads are finished. This slows down performance even more
Comment on Are we ready for javascript without a build step on the front end in 2023?
fbmac@lemmy.fbmac.net 1 year agoAbout the third point, the performance of your JavaScript code can be worse if it’s broken down into several small files rather than a single, bundled file. When a browser encounters a script tag linking to an external JavaScript file, it makes an HTTP request to fetch that file. This process occurs for each separate file. Each HTTP request involves time for network latency, server processing, and data transfer.
I’m usually preferring typescript too, but this point got me curious. I’m guessing it wasn’t an honest point, almost everywhere I look people are still using a build step, and I didn’t notice any move in a different direction
YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world 1 year ago
towerful@programming.dev 1 year ago
Http/1.0 would require serial connections, and the “multiple files bad” absolutely applies. Bundling and minification into a single JS file was common, even required - and I would consider that a build step. Otherwise you are dealing with all your code in a single massive file.
On http/1.1 browsers would open 6-8 concurrent connections to fetch files simultaneously. At this point, code splitting had benefits.
Most webservers now run http/2 which can fetch multiple files at the same time over the same connection. I believe it is “virtually unlimited”. At which point code splitting has such little impact on the transport layer, that it is more perfomant than transferring and loading all the code.
blog.vespa.ai/http2/ Has an more details as well as some load testing against http/1.0, http/1.1 and http/2