On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Julian Aubourg <j...@ubourg.net> wrote: > Let me get the reasoning straight: > 1) some power-users want to be able to strip jQuery down to the core (so to > speak), > 2) we decide to support and promote the use of Closure to that end, > 3) we make changes in the code that actually will make jQuery bigger (and > not just slightly bigger given how often we use $.each to factor method > definitions) for every users save for power-users
To be clear: This isn't something that we have to do, in fact the closure team has already mentioned that this is something that they can work around on their end. We just may need to provide inline comment hints, or something of that nature.
> All of this in the hope said power-users will embrace Closure? I'd call that > a gigantic leap of faith if not an outright insult to the majority of our > users who'll see jQuery's size go up.
Look, here are the facts: Ever since the very first release of jQuery the file size has gone up with every single release. I don't think we've ever had a release that significantly reduced the file size, no matter how hard we've tried. We can't blame adding new features as we haven't really added significant new features to the code base in a long time - this is all from bug fixes.
Stripping off 1.3KB of code from a 30+KB library is not the solution that users are clamoring for. Nor is stripping down the code base or removing features. Closure Compiler gives us a very real solution to the increasing file size of jQuery by allowing users to have a choice in what they can use - and in a way that will fully work with their applications and in a way that matches best practices. We literally cannot hope for a better solution.
> I just don't buy "all magic" solutions.
This isn't magic, it's really quite literal. We're providing a very real solution to the bloat in the jQuery code base by allowing users to only use the features that they need. They will have a code base that will literally be un-optimizable beyond that point, they can't hope to have a better solution than that.
Oh come on, this is quite specious, at best. We've *never* worried about issues like this. Let's assume the absolute worst case: Google gives up on closure entirely and we need a bug fix. In that case we pay a Java developer to fix the bug for us.
> I really think we have safer and less involved ways to reduce jQuery's size > before we lock ourselves in a vendor-dependant solution. > If it only involved rewriting two or three functions, I wouldn't mind, but > we're talking about unrolling all factored function defs + transforming the > way we deal with support properties. Is it worth it? Aren't we being a bit > brutal here?