CDN-hosted JavaScript Represents an Additional Point of Failure

Also hosting static files is probably the easiest thing to do with your web app. So why introduce another point of failure for something really easy? You may save a few milliseconds but definitely not worth it in my opinion. I'd rather have better control and if you really want to speed things up then combine and minify all your static assets.

I agree that a CDN introduces a potential point of failure. Another reason I host locally is that I compress and minify my CSS and JS into single files (e.g. application.js and application.css in Rails).

Everything but the most well thought-out app is itself a SPOF.<p>1. design and develop solutions appropriate for your audience; consider their location, access to the network, and possible speed or lack thereof.<p>2. I love using professionally managed SLA-backed CDN&#x27;s - like Akamai. A browser can only load so many items from the same host at one time, so I&#x27;ve found using a CDN helps, given my usage scenario. (see above)

&gt; I also feel that if more people understood that the internet is basically held together by duct tape, they would have a lot more reverence to the miracle that it works even remotely as reliably as it does.<p>The fact that the internet (and especially browsers) works at all is the main wonder of our age.