We Keep Coding

Is it better to load many small JavaScript files or one large JavaScript file?

I have noticed in chrome that if I load an image as a base64 string and then scroll through that part of the page it will slow down.
I have also noticed that when I navigate out of a tab with my Javascript in it and then move back to that tab it will be slow for a few seconds as though V8 is recompiling the js.
There are three options I can think of but I don't know which is best:
load a tiny loading page first and handle subsequent loading eloquently
load one huge js or css file with everything (jquery + my code + etc)
clump certain codes together (use jquery cdn but group my code together)
What is the best way to get your js loaded as quickly and eloquently as possible?

Generally, loading more files incurs more overhead in HTTP than combining them into fewer files. There are ways to combine files for all kinds of content:
For images, use CSS sprites.
For javascript, compile your client-side code and libraries into one file, and minify to reduce size.
For css, you can do something similar to the above. hem compiles stylus into one css file, for example, and this can help organizationally as well.
Additionally, when you concatenate Javascript and CSS, your webserver or reverse proxy can send them in compressed form for faster page loads. This will be more efficient for larger files as there is more to gain from compression.

There are way too many maybes for this to have any guaranteed solutions, but here you go:
1) load CSS at the top -- load it all there, if you're doing a site with multiple pages.
If you're building a one-page application (where you're running galleries and twitter feeds and articles, etc on the same page, and you can open and close different sections), then you can consider loading widget-specific CSS, at the time you're loading your widget (if it's not needed at startup).
Do NOT use #import in your CSS, if you want it to load quickly (you do).
2) load the vast majority of your JS at the bottom of the page.
There is practically nothing that can't be lazy-loaded, or at least can't be initialized at the bottom of the page, after the DOM is ready, and if there really is, serve those as separate files at the top of the page, and consider how you might rewrite to depend on them less.
3) be careful with timers -- especially setInterval... ...you can get your page's performance into a lot of trouble with poorly-managed timers.
4) be even more careful with event-handlers on things like window-scroll, resize, mouse-move or key-down. These things fire many, many times a second, so if you've written fancy programs which depend on them, you need to rethink how you fire the program (ie: don't run it every time something the handler goes off).
5) serving JS files is a trade-off:
Compiling JS takes a while. So if you're loading 40,000 lines in one file, your browser is going to pause for a little while, as it compiles all of that.
If you serve 18 separate files, then you have to make 18 different server calls.
That's not cool, either.
So a good balance is to concatenate files together that you KNOW you're going to need for that page, and then lazy-load anything which is optional on the page (like a widget for adding a comment, or the lightbox widget, etc).
And either lazy-load them after all of the main products are up and running, OR load them at the last possible second (like when a user hits the "add comment" button).
If you need to have 40,000 lines loaded in your app, as soon as it starts, then take the hit, or decide what order you can load each one in, and provide "loading" indicators (which you should be doing on lazy-load always) for each widget until it's ready (loading the JS one at a time).
These are guidelines for getting around general performance issues.
Specifics are hard to answer even when you have the site directly in front of you.
Use the Chrome dev console for profiling information and network performance, and rendering performance, et cetera.

Well there is a very popular concept called concatenation. The idea is to have as few HTTP requests to your server as possible. Because each request means a new connection, for which DNS lookup happens, then handshake is negotiated and then after a few more protocol-based steps, the server sends the requested file as the response.
You can check http-archive for a list of performance best-practices.
So yeah, you should combine all JS files into one (there are certain exceptions, like js at head and js in footer)
This is the answer for your question-title and points 2 & 3.
As for the other part, I am not clear about the scenario you are talking of.

I recently had the same problem, and then I developed and released a JS library (MIT licence) to do this. Basically, you can put all your stuff (js, images, css ...) into a standard tar archive (which you can create server side), and the library reads it and allows you to easily use the files.
You'll find it here : https://github.com/sebcap26/FileLoader.js
It works with all recents browsers and IE >= 10.

The number of files to load has an impact on the load speed of the whole site. I would recommend to pack into a single javascript file all the required functionality for the website to display properly.

HTML + JS + CSS converter

I have a HTML file with JS (jQuery) and CSS. I want a converter that converts all the files, minimizes it and just puts it all in a index.html for example. Google seems to be using this, they have no external files, not even the image, everything is just in one file and I'm sure pre-compiled before release.
Also is this a good idea?

This is not a good idea, in general.
Splitting out your CSS and JavaScript files means that they can be cached independently. You will likely be using a common CSS and JavaScript across many pages. If you don't allow those to be cached, and instead store them in each page, then the user is effectively downloading a new copy of those files for every page they visit.
Now, it is a good idea to served minified versions of these files. Also make sure to add gzip or deflate transfer encoding so that they are compressed. Text compresses nicely... usually around a ratio of 1/8.
(I should note that there has been one occasion where I have loaded everything into a single file. I was working on a single-page web application for the Nintendo Wii, which had no caching capability at all. This is about the only instance where putting everything into a single file made sense. Even then, it is only worth the effort if you automate it server-side.)

I don't recommend to concat CSS with JS.
Just put your css at the top of the page and js at the bottom.
To minify your CSS and JS you have to use gruntjs
Also I recommend you to read this article: Front-end performance for web designers and front-end developers

If your intention is to load the pages faster:
For images: try to use image sprites or images from different domains because browsers love downloading resources from different domains instead of just one domain.
For scripts as well as css: use online minifiers that can reduce white-spaces and reduce the size (if you are on a web hosting, your host may be already compressing the scripts for you using gzip etc)
For landing pages like index pages: If you have less styles then try inserting them inside the <style></style> tag, this will make the page load very fast, Facebook mobile does it that way.

If it wasn't a good idea, google wasn't be using it!
If you put everything in single file, you'll get less HTTP requests when the browser will check if the newer version of file is available.
You also get read of the problem that some resources are not refreshed, which is the headache for 'normal' developers, but it's a disaster in AJAX applications.
I don't know of any publicly available tool doing it all, surely Google is having its own. Note also that, for example in GWT, many such embedding was done by compiler.
What you can do is to search for:
CSS image embedder - for encoding images into CSS
CSS and JS minifier - for building single CSS/JS and minimizing it
And you need some simple tool that will embed it into HTML.

how to optimize aspx page when it has several script files included inside it?

i have an aspx page which contains script references to many javascript and css files(about 10 or more). the problem is as you would expect is the slow loading time of the page. i tried to move some of the scripts to the end of the page but this did not make any difference. my question is how to deal with numerous script files in order to speed up page load time

What do you mean by 'loading' time?
Is it a download time from server to client? - merge files, compress them and set expiry headers. Compress html, or render less HTML ;-). Use Content Delivery Network.
Is it the rendering of the page? - review CSS rules to make sure you don't have suboptimal / unused ones, defer execution of javascript that is not needed instantly, consider using jQuery live events.
Check your CPU - you may have some javascript updating a lot of DOM or doing long loops.
Analyze your page using PageSpeed or YSlow for more information.

You can use code obfuscators to minimize the size of your files. I normally use Dojo's shrinksafe for javascript:
http://o.dojotoolkit.org/docs/shrinksafe
Or the YUI Compressor: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/compressor/
and code beautifier for css: http://www.codebeautifier.com/
but there are many others out there. You just need to be sure to do a full regression test after you compress.

Try the same page as plain HTML (view/save source) to ensure is not .NET's whopping VIEWSTATE blob that is cause of your slow-down.

as said by others; combine (into 1 js & 1 css-file) & compress (minimize and use gzip output compression in IIS).
if you can't combine all of your javascript into one file (as some of it might be external), you should consider using labjs, a small library to load javascript in an efficient, unobtrusive and performant manner.

Where to place my JS code and where/how to load multiple jQuery plugins?

I have a couple of questions that are somewhat related so I'm posting them all on a single question on SO...
Question 1:
I'm currently doing this Facebook application where I'm using jQuery UI Tabs, there's only 4 where 2 of them are loaded through Ajax. The main page is index.html, this is where the tabs code is placed and for the 2 tabs loaded through Ajax, I have two different files, tab1.html and tab2.html.
Currently, the jQuery tabs initialization and Facebook JavaScript initialization is done on index.html. Both tab1.html and tab2.html have JavaScript code that belongs to those pages. For instance, tab2.html has a form and there's some JS (with jQuery) code to validate the form, this code is irrelevant to tab1.html as the JS code on tab1.html is irrelevant to tab2.html.
My question is, should I keep doing this or maybe aggregate all the JS/jQuery code in index.html, tab1.html and tab2.html in a single global.js file and then include it in index.html?
I though of doing this but there will be irrelevant code loaded if the user never opens tab1 or tab2. The benefit of using a single global.js file is that I could pack/minify the file, which I couldn't do if I included each code block in each respective tabX.html file.
Question 2:
As I'm using jQuery, I'm also using lots of plugins (actually only 3 for now, but that number can grow). Some of them provide a minified JS and I use those when available, when they are not, I use the normal versions of course.
There's also the requests problem. If I have lots of plugins, say 10, it will be 10 requests for those plugins. And there is also the fact that some plugins are used in tab1.html but not on tab2.html and vice-verse.
How should I load all the plugins in a minified/packed version on a single web request? Should I do that manually before publishing my app (packing and merging them into a single file) or could I use the PHP version of Dean Edwards's Packer and pack/merge all plugins on the fly? Would this be a good approach?
Question 3:
If the answer on Q1 was something like "merge all code in a single global.js file", should I include the global.js file in the packing/merging script I described above on Q2?
Doing this would simplify everything. I could have my development environment properly organized with all .js files, for the plugins and the global.js in the appropriate folders without bothering with anything else. The packing/merging should take care of the rest (pull the files from the respective folders, send the respective JS headers and output one single packed .js file).
The one thing that's confusing me the most is that not all plugins are used for every tab, not all code is for every tab too. Still, a chunk of the code is global to every tab and the index. This also simplifies everything as: a) I don't have to worry to add the needed code to each tabX.html file and can I simply look at them as HTML templates and nothing else; b) I don't have to be bothered in including the necessary plugins where I need them as I'm currently using $.getScript() from jQuery to load the plugins I need when and only when I need them, but I'm not sure this is a good approach and the code feels dirty and ugly like this.

Question 1:
Pack them all into a single .js file. This will make maintenance easier, and the tiny bit of overhead for the user loading a little js they they potentially may not use does not matter. I would also let Google load the jQuery library for you and then have all of your js code in a single separate file.
Question 2:
As these plugins don't really change I would manually combine them. Closure Compiler is good at this. When minifying use the highest setting that does not give any warnings.
Question 3:
Yes you will want to minify the global.js
When the browser downloads the global.js it's cached for an amount of time. Thus when you call the entire global.js again on a different page, its not re-downloaded it looks at your local copy first. So you do a little bit more work at first on the initial download, but from then on, it should be quicker.

Generally best practices related to javascript for speeding up website loads are:
Minify all javascript and put all of it into a single file (make as much of your javascript external as possible).
Put javascript at the bottom of the document.
Force web server to assign expiration date in the future and use a timestamped query string to invalidate old versions of javascript files, this will prevent unnecessary requests for your javascript if it has not changed. (ie: in httpd.conf ExpiresByType application/x-javascript "access plus 1 year", in your document: <script type="text/javascript" src="/allmy.js?v=1285877202"></script>)
Configure your web server to gzip all text files.

The main reason why you should keep too much javascript away from tab pages is because it will kill user experience. When a user clicks on a tab for the first time it will grab all the components needed on the fly which makes it kinda sluggish.
You're question is only semi-specific as we don't know a lot of things about your site like exact file sizes, how the modules are really used.
The general idea would be to find balance between modularity and speed.
When you're combining modules together these are the general ideas you should consider:
how often does this module change?
how often is this module used?
how big is this module (filesize)?
Then put the most used, stable codebase and merge it into one. Then you should include the rest site specific functionality on the tab pages.
Also, make sure to load javascript asynchronously as it won't block rendering of the page (and tabs).

Another combined answer:
if adding all the JS together in packed/minifed version generates no more than 30k of file size you're better off combining it. A single extra connection for a file (assuming it's not cached) is worth 10-20k of extra JS download. This has to do with browsers opening and closing connections vs streaming extra 20k on an established connection. The threshold also depends on your user distribution. If you have a lot of dial-up or low bandwidth users your threshold will be smaller.
I typically recommend combining and loading as 1 file unless the library is very obscure and requires a very edge case for it to be triggered on a page. Ex: Hover triggers functionality Y but it's on a feedback widget that gets less than 1% of traffic- don't bother combining.
Minifying and Packing is a little overrated these days. With the vast majority of browsers supporting gZip the amount of data consolidation gZip provides of the file over the wire during browser transmission has virtually the same effect as min/pack. However, there is a small cost on the browser to unpack it. Having said that, it's still good practice to min/pack the code since not all browsers support it, you may not want the file to be gZip enabled, etc.
I've used online packers against 3rd party module and it works fairly well. However, there are times when it can cause an issue so make sure to test your manually packed version before deploying.
Alternate:
If you feel that your users will rest on your index page for longer than 10 seconds you could pre-load the additional libraries separately using Js Loader Prototype pattern.

Steve Souder's Even Faster Websites is a book you should look into.
Firstly one experience slowdowns because whenever an external script is linked the browser waits for the script to download, parse and then execute. After this only it regains processing rest of the request. So to avoid such slow downs one can look at parallely downloading the scripts. Few techniques are Ajax the scripts if the scripts are in the same domain or use Script Dom element or Script in iframe if the scripts are on external domains
Q1 : For me modularising all the content is a better option with respect to further development if the page content has to be changed constantly. Responsiveness is very important for the end user. A small global.js will help in getting the app up and running.Parallely one can download the tabX.html.
Q2: As the jquery plugins rarely change. The plugins for the tabX.html pages can be downloaded parallely and locally cached so when the tabX.html is loaded the required plugins need not be fetched. SO all the plugins required by the main page should be in one single file and the ones used by the tabX.html's should be in different files.
Q3 : its a personal choice here. Do you want it to be developer friendly or user friendly. I bank on user friendliness. Making responsive and efficient apps is our job !!!. All the advantages of packing everything into a singe files is you will have ease in development. Well ugly code begets beautiful apps :). Users are speed-aholics. For eg. when google changed its 10 results per page to 20 they saw a considerable drop in search queries. So my opinion is not to pack all of them into one and load each parallely
some of the techniques and relevant links on testing each:
XHR eval /ajax : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10009
XHR Injection : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10015
Script in Iframe : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10012
Script DOM element : http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/?ex=10010

Question 1:
The best practice would be to place all js files in a single "global" file. This minimizes your HTTP Requests. Let's say you have 5 plug-ins, this would me you need to do 5 request, wherein if you combine them as one, you only need to request it once. This might be a little bit heavy on the first load, but the next time around this file will be cached by the browser, so..no worries about the size. HOWEVER, be careful about the sequence of the scripts when combining it. (I.E. : JQuery script should be placed first on the js file before JQuery UI's)
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/web-site-optimization-steps/4
http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/rtt.html
Question 2:
You can do it manually or automatically.Dean Edward's Packer is a good choice. If you're using ASP.NET, you can check MB Compression Handler, if you're using APACHE with PHP perhaps you can change the configuration of your htaccess to gzip it
Question 3:
It'd be better if you pack the "global" javascript file as well. This could save up bandwidth and save more time to load. You got the point, combining all the js files you need for the site will save you time from including individual scripts.

What Ext JS Framework files are necessary in a working site?

I've inherited a high-traffic site that loads some Ext javascript files and I'm trying to trim some bandwidth usage.
Are Ext libraries necessary for development only or are they required for the finished site? I've never used Ext.: Ext JS - Client-side JavaScript Framework
The site loads ext-base.js (35K), ext-all-debug.js (950K), expander.js, exteditor.js. It appears that expander.js and exteditor.js have some site specific code, so they should stay?
But what about ext-base.js and ext-all-debug.js? Am I reading this correctly - are base and debugging libraries necessary for a live site?

Simply consult the documentation the previous developers have written for you. :P
To actually answer your question: You will more than likely want to keep all of the files available. You might however want to change ext-all-debug.js to ext-all.js since the debug file contains non-minimized Javascript.

The previous posters are correct that if the site is actually using ExtJS, then you will need to keep the references to ExtJS. Assuming that you actually need to keep the references, replacing ext-all-debug.js with ext-all.js will save some bandwidth. Additionally, consider using one of the CDNs available now. For instance, using Google's CDN, you will save not only your own bandwidth, but bandwidth for your client and decrease page load times.

ExtJS files are available to be hosted on the Cachefly CDN: Ext CDN – Custom Builds, Compression, and Fast Performance.
Hosting the files remotely should remove the load for at least those files.
As to which you can safely remove, you need a JavaScript developer to work on documenting what's truly necessary to your application.
As to what ExtJS is, it's a JavaScript library and framework - a la jQuery, YUI, MooTools, PrototypeJS, etc. So indeed, it can be critical to your site if your site relies on JavaScript to work.

I don't know much about Ext, but I think it's to assume that expander.js and exteditor.js depend on ext-base.js and ext-all-debug.js. As such, removing the latter two will break the site functionality.
The only thing I'd change would to switch from the debug version of ext-all to the production (which is most probably called ext-all.js and you should be able to load it from the same place the debug is located or from the Ext site).

One option would be to condense all of those files into one file (it would be larger, but it would reduce the overhead of multiple HTTP requests). Also verify that the server is sending the ETag and Expires headers, so that the browser can cache as much of it as possible...