I think profiling is definitely needed before a decision can be made on this. Note that TinyTiddly has been using the minified "slower" type of compression since the beginning and no one has noticed or remarked on any difference in performance as compared to the regular version of TiddlyWiki. TinyTiddly may also prove useful for purposes of profiling the performance effects of minifying. ( http://tinytiddly.lewcid.org)
Saq On Jan 29, 10:41 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > With the upcoming inclusion of jQuery in the TiddlyWiki core, we've been > pondering whether to use the minified or the packed version. > > As of jQuery 1.3, there is no official packed version anymore[1]: > "Packed scripts are slower for the user [...] the final load time ends > up being much higher [...] due to the decompression step" > > However, the minified version is ~25 kB larger than the packed one[2]. > > So we have to decide what's more important - filesize or startup time. > While the former has always been an important factor (though perhaps > mostly psychological), it might not be worth sacrificing performance for. > > We'll do some profiling of our own to determine how significant this > difference really is. > > -- F. > > [1]http://blog.jquery.com/2009/01/21/jquery-131-released/ > [2]http://code.google.com/p/jqueryjs/downloads/list?q=1.2.6 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
