Comments for Brian Crescimanno

Comment on Who? by Mike Fallon

Mike Fallon — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:35:00 +0000

Brian,

My name is Michael Fallon, I’m a recruiter at IconStaff. You
have a very impressive resume! Have you ever considered relocating back to the Boston area?

Best,
Michael
@iconstaff.com">Mike @iconstaff.com

Comment on How Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Work by Darren Schreiber

Darren Schreiber — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:59:00 +0000

I am wondering if you know the implications on memory and performance using this style. I don’t know any posts that explicitly detail that. Presumably the function, being unassigned, will be destroyed after it’s one-time use. Is that correct? Therefore this strategy is almost more efficient on memory usage (though possibly less on performance as garbage collection needs to clean it up?)

Just thinking out loud…

Comment on How Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Work by Javascript: Self-Executing Anonymous Functions « Abdullah Yahya

Javascript: Self-Executing Anonymous Functions « Abdullah Yahya — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:12:12 +0000

[...] Another benefit is it doesn’t pollute the global namespace by not overriding other functions. To learn more, visit http://briancrescimanno.com/2009/09/24/how-self-executing-anonymous-functions-work/ [...]

Comment on Why are you still deploying overnight? by Oliver White

Oliver White — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:18:00 +0000

Great post…I really felt like I picked up something about the pain of sysadmins all over. Maybe people suffering at 3 AM should check out LiveRebel(.com) for instant rollouts and rollbacks of live apps with the push of a button. Continuous Deployment-style!

Comment on Why are you still deploying overnight? by Why You Shouldn’t Deploy Overnight « Dark Views

Why You Shouldn’t Deploy Overnight « Dark Views — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:42:09 +0000

[...] Looking for some reasons why this is wrong? Go here: Why are you still deploying overnight? [...]

Comment on How Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Work by Brian Crescimanno

Brian Crescimanno — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:17:00 +0000

When a function is created via a function expression, it automatically returns a reference to itself (a function object). By wrapping the function expression in ( ), you say, “execute this function expression and use the return value in this position.

It’s completely analogous to:

(a – b) + c;

The second ( ) simply instructs the interpreter “execute this object as a function.”

Comment on How Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Work by Brian Crescimanno

Brian Crescimanno — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:14:00 +0000

That’s a stylistic suggestion and fully depends on the codebase in which your code will be running. In a well-managed and reviewed codebase with automatic builds and verification, “hacks” like this shouldn’t be necessary.

Comment on How Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Work by Ml78

Ml78 — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:10:00 +0000

I dont get how the (function)(argument) bit is working :S

Comment on No, CSS isn’t always faster by Brian Crescimanno

Brian Crescimanno — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:08:00 +0000

I’m not sure I understand your objection here; my mentioning of the file sizes involved with the html / css version of the Twitter bird was to point out that in this “extreme” case, even the perceived advantage of being smaller to download might be a moot point. In that particular case, prior to magnification (which relatively few people do on CSS; fewer still on markup these days) the payload was actually comparable. The expectation I was trying to set in the article was that yes, indeed, downloading a pre-rendered image would require more bytes over the wire–but that the overall time to render would likely be quicker due to lack of computational complexity associated with applying the various style rules (especially on low-end devices).

The SVG example is interesting; though I think it falls squarely into the “CSS probably isn’t the right tool for the job” just based on the language semantics rather than performance characteristics (which would obviously vary based on SVG implementation on a particular platform).

In my mind, the more interesting data point would be to compare the processing time of the CSS associated with the Twitter bird image vs. the bit blit operation to paint the png to the screen. Sadly, I don’t know of a good way to get at that hard data on desktop-class browsers. I can say with certainty that on some of the devices I work with on a daily basis, the difference is perceptable without any specialized benchmarking tools.

Comment on No, CSS isn’t always faster by Paul Irish

Paul Irish — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 06:48:00 +0000

I was SOOOOO with you up until you started talking data. But since you brought it up….

I grabbed an SVG of the twitter bird, and the official png. I then minified the html/css version, and minified the svg. Checked the sizes. Then I gzipped both.. and compared those sizes to a pngquant’d png. You’ll see the results below:

5470 csstwitter.html
3068 svgtwitter.svg

1268 csstwitter.html.gz
1510 svgtwitter.svg.gz
2933 pngtwitter.png

Files available here: http://paulirish.com/lovesyou/csstwitter/

Now you do mention there may be computational overhead in declarative imagery, which may be true… But I guess I would just say that dogma is always dogma unless there is data.