|
|
|
|
|
|
by fabiospampinato
1748 days ago
|
|
|
Cash's maintainer here. I really don't think anybody can squeeze 50% out of the 6kb min+gzip code that make up Cash, quite a bit of thought went into squeezing as many bytes as possible out of it. (while still preserving a large degree of compatibility with jQuery, support for many methods and support for partial compilation) Your comparison isn't quite fair, our toggleClass function does a lot more than a simple addClass, and writing it this way lowers in fact the total min+gzip size. I'd be pretty impressed if you can shave just 1kb out of those 6kb to be honest. |
|
|
Shaving off 1kb out of 6kb of optimized GZIP code is probably impossible unless you missed something important.
I also went deep into optimizing Umbrella JS, it does a lot less than Cash so hence it's a lot smaller as well; but I went so far as comparing the GZIP output of calling `for ()` vs `forEach`, etc:
https://medium.com/@fpresencia/understanding-gzip-size-836c7...
That's why I am not concerned of repeating e.g. `function() {}` (instead of the, back then, experimental () => {}) many times, since with gzip in my experience that gets all totally abstracted out.
Edit: edited the original, explaining that Cash it's doing it nicely!