How much faster is requireJS actually, on a large website?
Has anyone done any tests on the speed of large websites that use asynchronous loading vs not?
For instance, using Backbone with a lot of views (> 100), is it better to simply have a views object that gets loaded with all the views at once and is then always available, or should they all be loaded asynchronously as needed?
Also, are there any differences for these considerations for mobile vs desktop? I've heard that you want to limit the number of requests on mobile instead of the size.
I don't believe that the intent of require.js is to load all of your scripts asynchronously in production. In development async loading of each script is convenient because you can make changes to your project and reload without a "compile" step. However in production you should be combining all of your source files into one or more larger modules using the r.js optimizer. If your large webapp can defer loading of a subset of your modules until a later time (e.g. after a particular user action) these modules can optimized separately and loaded asynchronously in production.
Regarding the speed of loading a single large JS file vs multiple smaller files, generally:
“Reduce HTTP requests” has become a general maxim for speeding up frontend performance, and that is a concern that’s even more relevant in today’s world of mobile browsers (often running on networks that are an order of magnitude slower than broadband connections). [reference]
But there are other considerations such as:
Finally, here's a good article by Steve Souders that summarizes a bunch of script loading techniques.
Update: Re CDN usage: Steve Souders posted a detailed analysis of using a CDN for 3rd party libraries (e.g. jQuery) that identifies the many considerations, pros and cons.