The Story of Google's Closure: Advanced JavaScript Tools

http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/11/story-and-impact-of-closure-googles.html

by mariorz • 17 years ago

36 14 17 years ago

blog.louisgray.com

cloudhead• 17 years ago

I'd be interested to know how it compares to the current version of Dojo.

neilc• 17 years ago

Mihai estimates that without Closure, Reader's JavaScript code would be a massive 2 megabytes

Wow. That just seems wrong to me.

louismg2• 17 years ago

The direct quote from Mihai from my e-mail reads: "The benefits of the compiler system are tremendous. The most obvious are the size ones, without it Reader's JavaScript would be 2 megaytes, with it it goes down to 513K, and 184K with gzip (the compiler's output is actually optimized for gzip, since nearly all browsers support it)."

(I left in the typo for this excerpt) -- I'm the author of the piece. I can't say why Reader's JS would be so high. I assume RSS can be heavy, and many feeds at once can be browser intensive.

barrkel2• 17 years ago

There is no necessary relationship between the size of code (the JS) and the size of data ("many feeds at once"), and since data is almost always much larger than the code, there is proportionally very little benefit from reducing code size to fit more data.

andrewljohnson• 17 years ago

What he doesn't tell you is how much the Reader code would be if it was just gzipped. That's the real comparison to make.

If gzipping alone would get the code down to 800kb or something, then the improvement made by closure doesn't seem so awesome.

Nonetheless, it's obviously good to get the file size down to the absolute minimum when you are going to serve millions or billions of copies.

nostrademons• 17 years ago

I've seen (and used) benchmarks with compressors other than Closure. The compiled + GZipped size is usually about half the size of the just GZipped file. Closure may do a bit better because it performs pretty aggressive dead-code elimination. 800K-1MB sounds pretty reasonable as a rough estimate.

I'd disagree on this not being awesome, though. 800K -> 143K is huge. You're talking about shaving several seconds off your user-visible load times. You get less cache thrash through having smaller pages. And at Google scale, this could be exabytes worth of bandwidth per month.

I've had code reviews held up while I shaved 3 bytes off the compiled GZipped size, and proposed changes vetoed because they'd add 19K to the GZipped JS size. The entire JS for websearch is something like 13K. Saving 600K+ is absolutely enormous.

louismg2• 17 years ago

At Google scale is a major point. Exabytes of bandwidth. Amazing to think about.

patio112• 17 years ago

You're talking about shaving several seconds off your user-visible load times.

This is the sort of statement that SHOULD set off a veritable explosion in your head of "If what he is saying is true, that is awesome. Seventeen exclamation points elided here!", because shaving seconds off user-perceptible load times results in huge, automatic, reproducible impacts to the bottom line, across a wide range of different web sites. You can reproduce it for yourself by A/B testing adding unnecessary delay into your pages versus not adding unnecessary delay, and watching what it does to conversions. Google has done this: they've found that less load time means more searches, which means more money. Amazon has done this: they found that 1 second more means 1% less -- revenue, that is.

Although I don't routinely A/B test bad practices against the default to make a point, I did get a handful of percentage points worth of free conversion back when I first saw one of the YSlow presentations and got religion on this. Seriously -- if you don't already pay attention to page load speed, you have a money tree in your back yard. Go put a basket under it and shake a bit.

wayne• 17 years ago

Also, in terms of running speed, Closure is a better form of compression than gzip since the JS engine still has to parse all that ungzip'd JS.

barrkel2• 17 years ago

I find this whole Closure story amusing, because what it amounts to is applying static typing techniques to a dynamic language - and guess what, static typing makes "it easier to catch errors much earlier". Where are the dynamic typing extremists when you need them?

yuan• 17 years ago

I don't remember seeing any "dynamic typing extremists" who would argue that static typing is totally worthless, just that it has cost (e.g., it's an additional concern for the programmers) too in addition to the benefits it provides, and there are often times and cases where the cost dwarves the benefits. I do see static typing advocates who would argue that static typing should be everywhere, at all time, and non-optional.

To the extent that a single case can prove anything, what is being done here in fact strengthens the case for dynamic typing, for it shows that a dynamic language can reap the benefits of static analysis too, WHEN it is beneficial.

jganetsk• 17 years ago

You don't know that dynamic typing + static analysis is better than just static typing. Closure definitely does not catch everything. Hell, even just using the [] operator on a non-array object, Closure breaks down.

The Story of Google's Closure: Advanced JavaScript Tools

Related Stories