True, and Javascript files are the smaller assets of a typical website - the bulk of it is usually HTML code and images. There might be some small speed-up because using a CDN doesn't count against the limited number of connections a browser makes to the page-serving domain, but I also suspect this performance advantage may be offset by DNS lookups and connection overhead. Another aspect to consider is the way a website can quickly double its potential points of failure from one to two by relying on some external CDN service.
> True, and Javascript files are the smaller assets of a typical website - the bulk of it is usually HTML code and images.
As the number of SPA-type "sites" grows, the ratio tilts towards JS and dynamic communications (XML, JSON, etc...). Though overall I don't think it matters much.
A more interesting (I think) potential effect, should a given CDN reach a significant hold of the overall serving market, is the likelihood of a cache hit for the relevant library.
