Working on a website which had already good YSlow / PageSpeed ratings, I just wanted to push a little further: can I go up to 100/100 or get very very close to it? That may seem a bit pointless, I mean : who is going to be able to tell the difference? Will it make any difference for the server, too? Well, I don't know, but I wanted to try this for fun. Yeah, strange kind of fun.
So I looked at the metrics of my favorite tools, and PageSpeed told me something: maybe you should try to inline these scripts. What? Am I not supposed to make my scripts external (rule 8 of my bible)? In fact, not always. Making an extra HTTP request is contrary to rule 1, after all. A small file is often not worth a request. So we'd better make it inline, right into the page, to avoid unnecessary HTTP overhead.
But hey, I don't want to sacrifice my cleanly organized JS folder just for the sake of performance. So I had to come up with something that would inline my scripts/css when necessary, without me having to copy and paste the contents of said resources. More importantly, I want it to be dynamic: maybe my files will grow large enough to be worth an extra HTTP request again. So there is no way I manage this by hand.
Working with Smarty on this project, I decided to make a little Smarty plugin that would help me doing this. The idea is, based on a file size limit, to include scripts the "normal" way or to inline them.
I was quite surprised by the results from the metrics point of view, though. My YSlow score jumped from 92 - 93 up to 99! Now, that's what I'm talking about: a pretty solid A-grade score . I didn't expect much gain on the YSlow side, as it doesn't mention anything about inlining your scripts. I was even expecting a slightly lower score as YSlow tells you to make your scripts external. But it seems that it doesn't only rely on some stupid rules of thumb, but rather also on real performance.
The PageSpeed score also jumped from something around 91 to 98, which is less of a surprise, as I just applied its recommendations.
What about the server?
That's nice, but I still have a doubt about overall performance, or, more accurately, server charge. That's not really a problem in my case, as I don't have thousands of simultaneous users, so my server can take a little extra charge, but: looking at my plugins implementation, I wonder if this couldn't be optimized. Each time it is used, it checks the file size to decide whether to inline it or not. I don't know if it's a heavy operation, if there is some kind of cache somewhere in the system that avoids to make disk access each time, etc. And when it decides to inline it, it reads the file contents and writes it in the page. And neither do I know precisely how heavy this is.
Anyway, as I told, that's not much of an issue for me, so the overall performance isn't affected. And that's easy to understand: it's quite easy to shave off 100 from the front end (any HTTP request easily takes that much), but what is 100 ms on the back end? That's a whole lot of time. 100ms of PHP execution (or Ruby, or Python, or Java, or C) is huge: most operations won't take more than a few ms. So I think it's pretty safe to say that avoiding unnecessary HTTP traffic is worth a little extra work on the server. And that's the whole thing! I see people working hard optimizing their server code, just to save 3ms here and there. On the server side, that may be important if you have tons of simultaneous connections, but the user won't even notice. When you start working just a little on front end optimization, you save milliseconds by packs of 500!
So, how could I get up to 100/100 on YSlow (and maybe PageSpeed)? Well, if I look at YSlow output, I see this:
Google Analytics script is not allowing me to get the holy 100, just because it doesn't set a far-future expiration date, thus making it difficult to cache for the browser. I don't know if there is any way to fix this, and I would be glad to hear there is one. I'm pretty sure that would be a great enhancement for the user, as this script download is not that fast.