Coffeehouse Thread

18 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

What is up with Channel9's Javascript?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    It seems that after browsing/posting for 10 minutes or so, any subsequent posts take at least 30 seconds to a minute to complete, and during the wait my browser is conveniently locked-down and whited-out so I can't do anything at all. Perhaps this is an odd marketing scheme to get me out of firefox, and over to Chrome where I can continue to use other tabs while C9 munches on its own tab and not the entire browser itself?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    I'm not sure what causes the hangs.  However, the pages could be loaded faster if the scripts were compressed.  This page alone has 716K of scripts.

  • User profile image
    Kolin1

    Why do they use some kind of ajax type functionality to change from page to page in a topic anyway?
    This is overkill and not what ajax was originaly designed for.

    ajax and other "no reload, download stuff in the back, insert into page" technologies have there uses, but this isn't one of them!

    Don't get me started about what happens when you turn javascript off!

  • User profile image
    Sampy

    JoshRoss said:
    I'm not sure what causes the hangs.  However, the pages could be loaded faster if the scripts were compressed.  This page alone has 716K of scripts.
    I'm only seeing 186kb of JS on this page with a hard refresh. What browser are you using?

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    Sampy said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*
    I'm only seeing 186kb of JS on this page with a hard refresh. What browser are you using?
    Seeing ~716K JavaScript in Firefox 3 on Windows Server 2008, most of it from that humongous Telerik WebResource.axd script.

  • User profile image
    heskew

    JChung2006 said:
    Sampy said:
    *snip*
    Seeing ~716K JavaScript in Firefox 3 on Windows Server 2008, most of it from that humongous Telerik WebResource.axd script.
    At home I'm getting ~190K -> Scripts (8 files) - 190 KB (711 KB uncompressed)

    Both the web dev toolbar and firebug give me the compressed numbers.

    If your requests are coming in with the right non-IE6 accept headers then the JavaScript files might be passing through some HTTP proxy on the way to your browser that's leaving them inflated...

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Sampy said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*
    I'm only seeing 186kb of JS on this page with a hard refresh. What browser are you using?
    I got the stats from Safari, how can I tell using IE7?

  • User profile image
    heskew

    JoshRoss said:
    Sampy said:
    *snip*
    I got the stats from Safari, how can I tell using IE7?
    Give fiddler a shot. You can use it with IE7, Safari - anything that will let you use a proxy for HTTPS?.

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    heskew said:
    JChung2006 said:
    *snip*
    At home I'm getting ~190K -> Scripts (8 files) - 190 KB (711 KB uncompressed)

    Both the web dev toolbar and firebug give me the compressed numbers.

    If your requests are coming in with the right non-IE6 accept headers then the JavaScript files might be passing through some HTTP proxy on the way to your browser that's leaving them inflated...
    That's exactly what's happening (ISA Server).

  • User profile image
    turrican

    Perhaps offtopic, but imho C9 is waaay too "ajaxified"...

    Sad

  • User profile image
    Kolin1

    turrican said:

    Perhaps offtopic, but imho C9 is waaay too "ajaxified"...

    Sad

    My point exactly!

  • User profile image
    Duncanma

    JChung2006 said:
    heskew said:
    *snip*
    That's exactly what's happening (ISA Server).
    If that is the case, then the 190kb is what is going across the internet to you, and the larger # is just between you and the proxy...

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    turrican said:

    Perhaps offtopic, but imho C9 is waaay too "ajaxified"...

    Sad

    I couldn't agree more. And to top things off, the ajax used here doesn't really make the site more user-friendly, or increase usability. If anything it make sthe site harder to use, slower to respond, buggier in navigation, etc.

    If you're going to use ajax, use in in a way that is necessary, and increases productivity. Please don't use it "Just b'cause".

    Also, c9 team, please don't mistake my words. I deeply appreciate the hard work all of you put into this forum, and look forward to many more years here.

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    JChung2006 said:
    heskew said:
    *snip*
    That's exactly what's happening (ISA Server).
    I am going through ISA.  Strange.

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    JoshRoss said:
    JChung2006 said:
    *snip*
    I am going through ISA.  Strange.

    I have been getting inconsistent results on the homepage from our ISA Server lately, where rarely the results are compressed end-to-end and most times they're not.  No ideas why it's happening but it used to be consistently compressed traffic between the outside world and the ISA server and uncompressed traffic between the ISA server and internal hosts.

    Even with GZip compression, with that much script, we're taking a hit on client-side performance with just JavaScript parsing, execution, and DOM interaction. With Mozilla and Google raising the bar on JavaScript performance, I hope that the IE and JScript teams will step up their game for their vNext's.

  • User profile image
    Human​Compiler

    JChung2006 said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    I have been getting inconsistent results on the homepage from our ISA Server lately, where rarely the results are compressed end-to-end and most times they're not.  No ideas why it's happening but it used to be consistently compressed traffic between the outside world and the ISA server and uncompressed traffic between the ISA server and internal hosts.

    Even with GZip compression, with that much script, we're taking a hit on client-side performance with just JavaScript parsing, execution, and DOM interaction. With Mozilla and Google raising the bar on JavaScript performance, I hope that the IE and JScript teams will step up their game for their vNext's.

    They have so far.  Have you tried IE 8 Beta 2?  Very fast (like FF 3 and Chrome).  Feels about the same to me.

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    HumanCompiler said:
    JChung2006 said:
    *snip*
    They have so far.  Have you tried IE 8 Beta 2?  Very fast (like FF 3 and Chrome).  Feels about the same to me.

    I've tried IE 8 beta 2.  It's comparable to Firefox 3.0 and Safari 3.1 for JavaScript performance.  V8 (Google Chrome) and TraceMonkey (Firefox 3.1) outperform it for JavaScript code, but the network I/O and DOM interactions (layout) on Web pages render those benefits mostly moot anyway.  I'm not sure how SquirrelFish (WebKit 4.0) compares.

    The JScript team is making up lots of ground, which is encouraging! For years, they were pretty much the worst for JavaScript performance. It wasn't that it was especially bad (except for the memory leaks), just horribly neglected. They've even patched IE6 JS enough so that Gmail will continue to support IE6 as a platform - New Gmail Code Base Now for IE6 [Gmail Blog, Google]

  • User profile image
    Human​Compiler

    JChung2006 said:
    HumanCompiler said:
    *snip*

    I've tried IE 8 beta 2.  It's comparable to Firefox 3.0 and Safari 3.1 for JavaScript performance.  V8 (Google Chrome) and TraceMonkey (Firefox 3.1) outperform it for JavaScript code, but the network I/O and DOM interactions (layout) on Web pages render those benefits mostly moot anyway.  I'm not sure how SquirrelFish (WebKit 4.0) compares.

    The JScript team is making up lots of ground, which is encouraging! For years, they were pretty much the worst for JavaScript performance. It wasn't that it was especially bad (except for the memory leaks), just horribly neglected. They've even patched IE6 JS enough so that Gmail will continue to support IE6 as a platform - New Gmail Code Base Now for IE6 [Gmail Blog, Google]

    Yah, JavaScript performance is important, but there are many other factors too.  I think IE 8's doing well because they've improved performance across the board, not just JavaScript.  It makes doing ajax feel better and better.  If all the major browsers are now going to be relatively fast it'll open up new opportunities for developers.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.