SO, choices today: - ES6 modules & compile to mega-binary (== bad load perf) - Use HTML Imports (Chrome) & polyfill - Old Skool Loading
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate
Of these, only the second gets you out of the JS parser and allows pre-parsing of resources (CSS, etc.). The others embed stuff in JS
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
And just so we're suuuuuuuuuper clear: embedding your HTML/CSS/templates in your script is SLOW. Not a little slow, SUPER slow. Piggy, even
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
So to see browser engineers take a wait-and-see on this while the community pervasively transpiles into piggy JS bundles is... 0_o
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
MSFT, Mozilla, and yes, Apple have a lot to answer for. This is basic, predictable stuff. The stonewalling on HTML Imports is pure
#fail.1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
To be fair, what has Google done to push ESM loader forward? I honestly don't know, but me/Angular could have done more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IgorMinar
: from a perf/parsing perspective, ESM is somewhere between distraction and no-op. Nicer than <script async>, tho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @IgorMinar
: no, we've participated for the (many years long) debate. V8/Chrome has actively engaged.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
I'm sorry to be difficult but I want to be certain that HTML imports are not the next O.o().
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.