non-gzipped

Interesting to see a similar correlation in your results in the ratio between the two non-gzipped and gzipped files.

That's interesting, are you also suggesting that serving non-gzipped content might lead to less battery usage than serving gzipped content?

This is why, once you touch the Scala collections library in Scala.js, you receive 150 KB worth of (non-gzipped) code.

Minified size, non-gzipped is almost 90k (up from 57k) -- will it stay this large?

In particular they contain this illegal prime number, and the gzipped and non-gzipped versions of this program in every programming language possible.

Heh, so gzipped png's are generally larger than non-gzipped.

I think what I'm going to do is add a checkbox at the top that will let you toggle between the gzipped and non-gzipped weight.

It's 10KB gzipped (30KB non-gzipped) + jQuery.

I think you were comparing gzipped Choo to non-gzipped React.

> In the worst case, we would serve you 2.5MB of minified (non-gzipped) JS And holy guacamoly, how do you end up with this?!

I think it's been said enough here but Varnish can certainly do almost everything that they are saying it can't do, including some other storage optimizations like storing the gzipped response and serving a non-gzipped when requested (as of Varnish 3.0).

Preact pros was: - very small size (it's near 5kb Non-Gzipped without compatibility layer), perfect for lightweb mobile apps (Inferno was like 60kb, React 250kb) - has less gimmicks for porting from React and an optional compatibility layer to enable some of low-level React libs and components Preact has no synthetic event system wrapping, if you heavily relly on it then things could be rough.