I just ran some tests against the current version from SVN to see how
fast they load on my machine.

Firefox 2.0.0.4 on Linux:
jquery.js (original uncompressed) - 158243 bytes: 66ms
jquery.pack.js - 21585 bytes: 129ms
jquery.compressed.js (my compressor) - 17005 bytes: 394ms


IE6 on XP under VMWare on the same Linux machine:
jquery.js (original uncompressed) - 158243 bytes: 15ms
jquery.pack.js - 21585 bytes: 62ms
jquery.compressed.js (my compressor) - 17005 bytes: 171ms

On a 56K modem my version will be faster on the first load then the
packed version will be faster on subsequent loads. It all depends on
what you're after.

I haven't made the source available yet but that's something I'm
considering. I'll need to clean it up first. I could get you a jar file
(it's written in Java) if you're interested.

Aaron

Michael Geary wrote:
> Sounds interesting, Aaron, thanks for the pointer.
>
> Two questions:
>
> How is the unpacking speed? I don't care how long it takes to pack the code
> (within reason), but unpacking speed is very important, especially on slow
> machines like an iPhone/Nokia/Windows Mobile phone. I saw a test report that
> seemed to indicate that Dean's packer took 1.5 seconds to unpack jQuery on
> the iPhone, which is way too slow. I would gladly take a slower packing time
> to get faster unpacking.
>
> Is the source code available? I can't use a compressor that I have to go to
> a website to use. That's fine for testing, but for production use I need to
> be able to integrate it into my build process and have it available at all
> times.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Mike
>
>   
>> From: Aaron Porter
>>
>> I know Dean Edward's packer has already been suggested but 
>> you can try my compressor if you'd like:
>>
>> http://www.scriptingmagic.com/Topics/Compression/JavaScript%20Compressor/
>>
>> My compressor is slower than packer but the results will be 
>> smaller. It also doesn't have a problem with things like 
>> missing semi-colons at the end of lines because it uses Rhino 
>> for the first pass which cleans everything up.
>>     
>
>   

Reply via email to