I get the feeling that people only look at (and complain about) their file size after they've noticed their TW is running slow. So I guess perceived speed is more important.
;Daniel On 06/02/2009, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > > After some deliberation, we think that using the packed version in the > TiddlyWiki core is not a good idea: > * web servers usually support compression via gzip > * the decompression is fairly slow in JavaScript[1] > * packed code makes debugging very painful > * packing can introduce bugs > * packed scripts are almost impossible to read, which breaks TiddlyWiki's > "view source" paradigm (even though minified scripts are compressed as > well, the obfuscation isn't as comprehensive) > * packing requires additional effort when creating a release > * the jQuery team doesn't provide a packed version anymore, and creating > a custom derivative should generally be avoided > > In contrast, we couldn't make out any tangible benefits for using a > packed version - apart from the vague and possibly unjustified filesize > concern. > > Also, there's always TinyTiddly[2] for when filesize really matters. > > Any objections? > > > -- F. > > > [1] http://ejohn.org/blog/library-loading-speed/ > [2] http://www.tiddlywiki.org/wiki/TinyTiddly > > > > -- Daniel Baird I've tried going to the XHTML <bar /> a few times, but it's always closed. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
