Separate file vs. embedded "javascript :" - how fast is the page load?

[Slavo Smutny]

Hi,
which is better approach to store my JavaScript code, to store it in
separate .js file
or to embed the code within HTML attributes (e.g. <p
onclick="javasc ript:submit();" >click this</p>)?
I am interested in performance, i.e. how quick is page loaded in each case?

I think the better one is to store the code in separate .js file so that the
user browser can cache the file
(source: http://www.quirksmode.org/js/placejs.html#link1) but I am not
entirely sure.

Thanks in advance.

--
Slavo Smutny

[Evertjan.]

Slavo Smutny wrote on 21 nov 2005 in comp.lang.javas cript:

Hi,
which is better approach to store my JavaScript code, to store it in
separate .js file
or to embed the code within HTML attributes (e.g. <p
onclick="javasc ript:submit();" >click this</p>)?
onclick="javasc ript:submit();"

is always wrong because superfluous, use:

onclick='submit ();'

You cannot put the above in a .js file however.

perhaps you mean: <script ..></script> ?
I am interested in performance, i.e. how quick is page loaded in each
case?
Did you test it?
I think the better one is to store the code in separate .js file so
that the user browser can cache the file
(source: http://www.quirksmode.org/js/placejs.html#link1) but I am not
entirely sure.

The catching is true, but "better" depends on the file-size, the importance
of loading time, and the effect on server use amount.

In general the first reason to have a .js file is using that same file for
multiple pages, IMHO, with many advantages, like the ones above, but also
disadvantages, like extensive testing when you change the file.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Replace all crosses with dots in my emailaddress)