> Ember [being 49kB in size is] still far too big for many. Yet we conveniently forget that loading just a few images will quickly surpass that 49K of code.
50kB of compressed and minified JS aren't the same as a 50kB JPEG. The JS must be parsed and compiled which is a far heavier operation than decoding an image.
The last time I looked, it took about 100msec to parse and compile 100kB of minified and gzipped JavaScript on a desktop. However, after all of this you still won't get the full speed. It needs to run for a bit and then the hot parts of the code will be replaced with more optimized code. Again, this takes some precious resources.
An image, on the other hand, is decoded within a few msecs and that's the end of that.
Size is just one metric. It won't tell you the whole story.
50kB of compressed and minified JS aren't the same as a 50kB JPEG. The JS must be parsed and compiled which is a far heavier operation than decoding an image.
The last time I looked, it took about 100msec to parse and compile 100kB of minified and gzipped JavaScript on a desktop. However, after all of this you still won't get the full speed. It needs to run for a bit and then the hot parts of the code will be replaced with more optimized code. Again, this takes some precious resources.
An image, on the other hand, is decoded within a few msecs and that's the end of that.
Size is just one metric. It won't tell you the whole story.