What are the differences in performance between synchronous and asynchronous JavaScript script loading?
Posted
by
jasdeepkhalsa
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by jasdeepkhalsa
Published on 2012-12-10T16:56:52Z
Indexed on
2012/12/10
17:03 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 128
JavaScript
|asynchronous
My question is simply: what are the differences in performance between synchronous and asynchronous JavaScript script loading?
From what I've gathered synchronous code blocks the loading of a page and/or rest of the code from executing. This happens at two levels.
First, at the level of the script actually loading, and secondly, within the JavaScript code itself.
For example, on the page:
Synchronous: <script src="demo_async.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Asynchronous: <script async src="demo_async.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
And within a script:
Synchronous: function a() {alert("a"); function b() {alert("b");}}
Asynchronous (and self-executing):
(function(a,
function(b){
alert(b);
})
{
alert(a);
}))();
So what really is the difference in performance from using these different loading methods and JavaScript patterns?
© Stack Overflow or respective owner