• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Can style developers go easy on the javascript extras?

Brent W

Well-known member
#1
Or at least make it so that javascript isn't being loaded if we aren't using the features. Just look at what is used on UI.X. I like the look of the style but it really sucks that Javascript is so heavily relied on. We aren't using the sticky navigation, yet all the code is present. I don't mean to pick on just them. Others do the exact same as well.

I couldn't even submit this post because of how many lines of javascript were present.

https://www.religiousforums.com/js.txt
 

Arty

Well-known member
#2
Problem is js files aren't parsed by template engine and styles cannot run any server side scripts. So there is no way to do it without add-on. Unless code is directly included in template or split into multiple files, both of which are even worse.

Its one of reasons my future styles will all require an add-on. It will make installation a bit more complicated, but I think benefits outweigh it.
 

Brent W

Well-known member
#3
Problem is js files aren't parsed by template engine and styles cannot run any server side scripts. So there is no way to do it without add-on. Unless code is directly included in template or split into multiple files, both of which are even worse.

Its one of reasons my future styles will all require an add-on. It will make installation a bit more complicated, but I think benefits outweigh it.
But UI.X comes with an add-on already. Not sure how many other developers do it or not. I am hopeful that XF2 will rid my of relying on 3rd party styles. I really like the look out of the box.
 

Mike Creuzer

Well-known member
#6
Or at least make it so that javascript isn't being loaded if we aren't using the features. Just look at what is used on UI.X. I like the look of the style but it really sucks that Javascript is so heavily relied on. We aren't using the sticky navigation, yet all the code is present. I don't mean to pick on just them. Others do the exact same as well.

I couldn't even submit this post because of how many lines of javascript were present.

https://www.religiousforums.com/js.txt
That is a drop in the bucket compared to what XenForo loads in. We load it there because as @Arty pointed out we have no choice. In other words if you want to be able to say control whether users can collapse the sidebar, you did a line of code there.

The JavaScript for UI.X has been optimized so much that it only adds 3% load to your site. Other styles add as much as 50% because they use jQuery. We use raw JS.
 

Brent W

Well-known member
#7
That is a drop in the bucket compared to what XenForo loads in. We load it there because as @Arty pointed out we have no choice. In other words if you want to be able to say control whether users can collapse the sidebar, you did a line of code there.

The JavaScript for UI.X has been optimized so much that it only adds 3% load to your site. Other styles add as much as 50% because they use jQuery. We use raw JS.
Thanks for the explanation.