Re: [dev] suckless too to minify CSS, JS and html

From: Peter Nagy <petern_AT_riseup.net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 06:34:49 +0000

The distinction isn't that clear though, e.g. many scripting languages can byte compile the sources. And the "no obvious reasons" is as usual speed, be it runtime or network. An OSS website can still publish the real, readable sources with steps how to use it, just like compiled languages do. I wouldn't be so quick with the categorization. Compiling is a type of preprocessing step and many other languages have other such steps.

I still loathe js though.

--
Peter Nagy
 - To reach a goal one has to enjoy the journey
On May 22, 2018 6:30:58 PM UTC, Guilherme Vieira <super.driver.512_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:17:20PM +0200, harry666t wrote:
>> I wonder how many people here that advise against minification, keep
>> their compiled binaries "readable".
>
>I wonder how many people who make that comparison realize it's a false
>dichotomy.
>Like v4hn alluded to, scripting languages have the distinct ability to
>be executed easily and
>directly from source. Doing the same with compiled programming
>languages is possible, but
>not simple or very practical. So it's no contradiction at all to run
>compiled code while still
>advocating against HTML/CSS/JS minification, in particular when you're
>also a free software
>advocate. For compiled languages, there are on-going efforts for
>verifiable, reproducible builds.
>HTML/CSS/JS minification goes in the precise opposite direction by
>putting effort into turning
>readable code into unreadable code for no good reason.
>
>G.

Received on Wed May 23 2018 - 08:34:49 CEST