JSLint VS compression-dictionary-transport

This is the spec for the language Douglas Crockford (author of the book "JavaScript: The Good Parts", the JSON specification[1], JSLint[2]) had explained in his famous talk: "The Next Programming Language"[3].

The "big things" in the language are the Actor model, favouring immutability and capabilities-based security.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON

[2] https://www.jslint.com/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2idkNdKqpQ

Someone should write a book about this [0] and a tool to automate checking your JavaScript code [1].

[0]: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/javascript-the-good/978...

[1]: https://www.jslint.com/

I'm working on a book called "How to not get your knickers in a twist because you neglected to learn from people who came before you."

JavaScript Linter

One way to achieve this is by using linting tools like ESLint or JSLint. These tools automatically analyze your code for errors, stylistic inconsistencies, and potential security vulnerabilities. By customizing the linting rules to align with coding standards and best practices, you can identify and rectify potential security issues early in the development process. Linting helps maintain a clean and secure codebase.

>Does this mean that in theory i could skip the build/bundling step entirely?

You can but you must write your app in something the browser understands (js not ts, css not sass etc) and use native modules. For example, here is the test harness for a custom module, written in pure html with no build step: https://github.com/javajosh/simpatico/blob/master/combine2.h.... Here is a more complex (and much older) example from Crockford: https://www.jslint.com/

And yes, the experience developing this way is quite nice!

I came across a problem where I had to find the ES6 features used by any javascript project and other data regarding their use. When I reached out to stackoverflow, I could find only one relevant post which asks you to use linters like jshint/jshint or compilers like babel. Jslint didn't seem to report anything specific to ES6 and Babel converts all the ES6+ features to ES5 but doesn't report anything regarding which constructs were used or how many times they were used. However, Jshint reported all ES6 features used in the code along with some metadata. And, to suit my needs, I ended up writing a python script that calls Jshint on all JS files in a project and presents the features used in the project and the number of times they were used across all files. You can find the code here : jsHintRunner

Javascript Linting parses and checks if any syntax is violating the rule. If a violation occurs, a warning is shown explaining unexpected behavior. Use the online version for small projects: JSLint, ESLint or JSHint. For larger projects, it is recommended to use a task runner like Gulp or Grunt. Linters ensure developers are following the best practices as a result of which few bugs appear during project development.

Programmers of classical languages hate JavaScript because it's prototype-based, dynamic and weakly typed (among other complaints). It's also the number one most in-demand programming language in 2022 according to a number of independent surveys. JSLint can help you write better JavaScript and JSMin can minify your code before deployment. These tools were created by Douglas Crockford. I would recommend his books JavaScript: The Good Parts for programmers coming to JavaScript for the first time, and How JavaScript Works for experienced JavaScript programmers.

> Dictionary entries (or at least the metadata) should be cleared any time cookies are cleared.

So it seems it should not get you anything you cannot already do with cookies.

https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport?tab...

Talked about here:

https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

There's a spec up for custom dictionary support across the web. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

This was one of the major blockers that iirc Mozilla threw in the way of zstd compression support: they said zstd with a standardly accepted dictionary would be too particular & wanted more. With this spec maybe Moz will accept zstd as a web compression standard.

Here here. Today, bundlers may get you to first page load faster. But if a user comes back and you've shipped two small fixes, all those extra wins you get from compressing a bunch files at once fly out the window & you're deep in the red. If you have users that return to your site, and your site is actively developed, bundling is probably a bad tradeoff.

We see similar fixedness in the field all over the place: people freaking love small Docker image sizes & will spend forever making it smaller. But my gosh the number of engineers I've seen fixate on total download size for an image, & ignore everything else, is vast. Same story, but server side: my interest is in the download size for what v1.0.1 of the Docker container looks like once we already have v1.0.0 already shipped. Once we start to consider what the ongoing experience is, rather than just the first time easy-to-judge metric, the pictures all look very different.

Then there's the other thing. The performance reasons for bundling are being eaten away. Preload & Early Hints are both here today & both offer really good tools to greatly streamline asset loading & claw back a lot of turf, and work hand-in-glove with import-maps. The remaining thing everyone points out is that a large bundle compresses better (but again at the cost of making incremental updates bad). The spec is in progress, but compression-dictionary-transport could potentially obliterate that advantage, either make it a non-factor, or perhaps even a disadvantage for large bundles (as one could use a set of dictionaries & go discover which of your handful of dictionaries best compress the code). These dictionaries would again be first-load hit, but could then be used again and again by users, to great effect again for incremental changes. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

Bundles are such an ugly stain on the web, such an awful hack that betrays the web's better resourceful nature. Thankfully we're finally making real strides against this opaque awful blob we've foisted upon this world. And we can start to undo not just the ugliness, but the terrible performance pains we've created by bundling so much togther.