Thanks for sharing your results! I'm glad that my work has led to such a large improvement for your app.
-- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:36 PM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > After 2 weeks of intense work, I got my app fully functional with the > options below. > > Here’s in short what I did: > > 1. I audited as many cases of quoted access I could in the unminified JS > code. Any place where it was accessing something on a class/instance was > because the compiler couldn’t figure out the type. > 2. I added types to all the places I could find. I basically eliminated > every use of :Object and :* that I could. > 3. I used Vectors where I could (using the > -js-vector-emulation-class=Array option) > 4. I removed unknown class accessors (no looping through classes and > calling static methods) > 5. Removed all the dynamic bracket access and assignment. (no for-ins on > class instances, etc.) > > In my travels I discovered that: > 1. Jewel does not look like it can be aggressively minified. (Spectrum > can.) > 2. MX/Spark does not look like it can either. > 3. I need to heavily modify my already modified version of TLF to get it > to work with minification. > 4. There was some unnecessary Reflection and Vector dependencies in > framework code which I fixed. > 5. Class names is a prime candidate for code removal, and (besides > reflection) the current roadblock with that is SimpleCSSValuesImpl which > accesses ROYALE_CLASS_INFO. If we can eliminate that, I’d save 66KB (12KB > gzipped) in my app. > 6. It’s worthwhile to use protected methods for event listener callbacks, > because the long-winded private method names end up in the minified code. > (I still need to address this.) > > End results: > > Before my effort, my app was 2,903,814 bytes and 777,071 bytes when gzipped > Afterwards: 1,989,596 bytes and 621,851 bytes gzipped > > That’s a savings of 1MB before gzipping (about 1/3) and 155KB after > gzipping. (about 20% reduction) > > If we can get rid of the class names we can get down to: 1,923,653 > bytes/610,493 bytes. > > A little over 600KB is a totally reasonable size for an application of > this size and complexity. The Flash version was MANY times that and has a > LOT less code. > > This turned into somewhat of an obsession for me, but I’m pleased with the > results. :-) > > HTH, > Harbs > > On Dec 16, 2021, at 8:54 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well I spent more time. Besides the XML issues which are pretty much > resolved, I ran into: > > > > 1. I have a setter in a class which was removed by the goog dead code > removal. I worked around it by turning the setter into a method. I’ll see > if I can come up with a minimal test case on that. > > > > 2. I have a library which has a LOT of dynamic pieces. I spent a LONG > time trying to assign types to places where I was getting runtime errors. I > now got to the point where there’s no more runtime errors, but it’s still > not working and I’m pretty sure it’s because I missed some typing. > > > > Is there any way to keep public accessors on one library or specific > classes? I’d like to compile my app with: > > > > "-js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true", > > "-export-public-symbols=false", > > "-prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false", > > "-prevent-rename-public-symbols=false", > > "-prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false" > > > > but be able to exclude a list of classes from that. > > > >> On Dec 1, 2021, at 7:47 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com <mailto: > harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> I’m pretty sure the issue is related to events not being properly > handled. Although blinding might be worth looking into. > >> > >> I’ll look into it some more when I have more time. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >>> On Dec 1, 2021, at 7:14 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > <mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> It *almost* works. I found and fixed two cases of bracket access which > >>> broke things. Now I’m getting no errors, but it’s still not quite > working. > >>> I’m guessing it’s something simple that I need to fix. > >>> > >>> Have you tried a smaller set of prevent-rename options? That might > help you > >>> narrow things down, if things start working better. I'd try allowing > public > >>> variables, and maybe public accessors, to be renamed first, and see if > that > >>> works. Those types of symbols are most likely to be getting accessed > >>> dynamically somehow. However, I don't really have much in the way of > tips > >>> to narrow it down from there. ConstantBinding would be one thing to > look > >>> out for, which I mentioned in my summary. > >> > > > >
