Skip to content
This repository
Browse code

Adding note about stopping future development of LABjs.

  • Loading branch information...
commit 001781117ddefb1fea7388479d3c614e523ac880 1 parent e0b979f
Kyle Simpson authored July 25, 2012

Showing 1 changed file with 2 additions and 0 deletions. Show diff stats Hide diff stats

  1. 2 
2 
Source Rendered
... ...
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
1 1
 LABjs (Loading And Blocking JavaScript)
2 2
3 3
+**NOTE: LABjs is now 3 years old, and has been stable (no bug fixes/patches) for almost a year. It accomplished its goal of leading the way to usher in dynamic script loading techniques to improve web performance. Furthermore, the community clearly prefers (by and large) the AMD pattern. Therefore, as of today, July 25, 2012, no further development effort is likely to occur on this project. Thank you to the community for your support of this project over the last 3 years.**
4 6
 LABjs is a dynamic script loader intended to replace the use of the ugly, non-performant <script> tag with a flexible and performance-optimized alternative API.
5 7
6 8
 The defining characteristic of LABjs is the ability to load *all* JavaScript files in parallel, as fast as the browser will allow, but giving you the option to ensure proper execution order if you have dependencies between files.

12 notes on commit 0017811

Fabian Kochem

Now this is just bad. Sad to see it go.

Here's a fork:

Kyle Simpson

NOTE: LABjs just won't be actively developed for new features. But it will be maintained in case there are bugs found. It's still in use by lots of small and big sites, and more are adopting it every day. I still encourage people to choose its simpler path to script loading (as compared to AMD) if and when appropriate. I certainly use it on pretty much all my sites.


You'd better! I just discovered Labjs today!


@xtrasmall I think you will find LAB.js is a very mature product, and you don't need to worry about it. I haven't had a problem yet, but under the rare scenario that you do, @getify is very quick to respond.

Ryan Platte

Given the encouragement to use LABjs in the above comment, mightn't it be better to change the note at the top of the home page to be less scary? I took it to mean "we discourage you from using LABjs as it's now outmoded", but apparently all you're really trying to do is avoid expectations for new feature development.

If you were to word it positively, something like "LABjs is now considered stable. It will be maintained in case there are bugs found, but won't be actively developed for new features.", I feel it would give people confidence rather than tremulation.

Denis Andrejew

Agree with replaid! I also got the impression that use of LABjs is discouraged!
(And good to know that this isn't the case and it's "safe" to use it as I also just found out about it!)

Kyle Simpson

OK, fair enough. I'll reword the note to make it less "scary". :) Happy LABjs'ing!

Kyle Simpson

Bam. :) 14b52d0

Ryan Platte

Thanks very much, Kyle!

Asher Snyder

But that CDN failover would be a really nice option. Would make it complete in my opinion. I personally dislike the AMD pattern, and see LAB as a superior option. Not having the CDN failover requires loading of frameworks like jquery with the old blocking script tags. Please consider just making this one change?

Kyle Simpson


I just point people to this: I know a few people who've used that pattern (or something like it) successfully. It limits you in other things, but it DOES provide your fallback (based on timeouts).

I know it'd be nice to not have to do extra work on top of including LABjs, but I still think CDN fall-back is kinda a niche, possibly anti-pattern thing. It was never something I wanted to fully "bless" by codifying it into the lib.

Asher Snyder

@getify Thanks for the quick response, and solution. I understand your thoughts about CDN fail-back being kinda-niche, though I think Google's CDN has made it less so as it's an officially described tactic.


Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.