Menu
Should I use a local copy of jquery, or should I link to a copy provided by Google or Microsoft? I'm primarily concerned about speed. I've heard that just pulling content from other domains can have performance advantages related to how browsers limit connections. In particular, has anyone benchmarked the speed and latency of Google vs. Microsoft vs. local?
Also, do I have to agree to any conditions or licenses to link from a third-party?
849
One big advantage of using the hosted jQuery from Google or Microsoft: Many users already have downloaded jQuery from Google or Microsoft when visiting another site. As a result, it will be loaded from cache when they visit your site, which leads to faster loading time.
This is because the jQuery file loads from a CDN and not from the website. In addition, jQuery loads faster when sourced from a CDN that it does when from the website. This is because CDNs will load jQuery files from the closest server to the user.
While JQuery is a library for better client-side web page development, AJAX is a technique of doing XMLHttpRequest to the server from the web page and sending/retrieving data used on a web page. AJAX can change data without reloading the web page. In other words, it implements partial server requests.
To put things in a nutshell, jQuery is a better option while working with CMS websites like WordPress, Weebly, etc. It makes development easier because of the huge library of plugins it already has. However, even though jQuery is made from Javascript, ignoring vanilla Javascript is not a wise decision.
One advantage would be that a user may already have it cached since another site also linked to a 3rd party.
I've been using google for this and haven't experienced any problems with it so far. You can easily load jQuery using:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.google.com/jsapi"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
google.load("jquery", "1.4");
</script>
Anytime you use an asset hosted by a third party you increase the number of possible points of failure in your application. You also risk potential bugs resulting from changes made to the asset (say, fixing a bug or updating to a new version) by the hosting party.
Page performance can potentially suffer due to latency differences between your site and the host. Network outages between the client and the host can cause your page to fail, as can internet filtering on the part of their ISP. For instance, using code hosted by Google will cause problems for anyone viewing your site from China.
It's better for security, performance, stability and version integrity to keep all of your assets in one place. Unless you're running a ridiculously high-traffic site, you shouldn't worry about distributing your content.
It's also worth noting that while jQuery isn't exactly a featherweight include, it's not obnoxiously large and, like any JavaScript includes, should be (but is not guaranteed to be) cached by the browser.
34
Most recommendations I have seen have been to use the hosted version of Google or Microsoft etc.
Dave Ward has a nice article explaining the reasons.
3-reasons-why-you-should-let-google-host-jquery-for-you
See his post for stats.
Dave does point out that you should only do this for Public Facing websites.
31
I have been using Google's AJAX library hosting in production for several clients. Works like a charm, and is definitely the best way to go.
http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/
29
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
