Create a gist now

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Embed
What would you like to do?
Loading multiple 3rd party widgets asynchronously
(function() {
var script,
scripts = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
function load(url) {
script = document.createElement('script');
script.async = true;
script.src = url;
scripts.parentNode.insertBefore(script, scripts);
}
load('//apis.google.com/js/plusone.js');
load('//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js');
load('//s.widgetsite.com/widget.js');
}());
@mgoulart

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mgoulart

mgoulart Mar 14, 2013

If there's no previous script tag on the page, won't scripts.parentNode throw a (Cannot read property parentNode of undefined) error ?

also any for in loop should use hasOwnProperty to protect for any prototype modifications on the page.

If there's no previous script tag on the page, won't scripts.parentNode throw a (Cannot read property parentNode of undefined) error ?

also any for in loop should use hasOwnProperty to protect for any prototype modifications on the page.

@zenorocha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zenorocha

zenorocha Mar 14, 2013

  1. You're always going to have a script tag on the page, because you need to add the script above somehow
Owner

zenorocha commented Mar 14, 2013

  1. You're always going to have a script tag on the page, because you need to add the script above somehow
@mgoulart

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mgoulart

mgoulart Mar 14, 2013

Very true! Good point =)

You also might want to wrap this in a function to protect the variable namespaces.

Very true! Good point =)

You also might want to wrap this in a function to protect the variable namespaces.

@eduardo-matos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eduardo-matos

eduardo-matos Mar 14, 2013

As you don't use the object keys, maybe it would be better to loop an array instead (performance).

As you don't use the object keys, maybe it would be better to loop an array instead (performance).

@wesleyvicthor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wesleyvicthor

wesleyvicthor Mar 14, 2013

common approach.

common approach.

@zenorocha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zenorocha

zenorocha Mar 15, 2013

How about now?

Owner

zenorocha commented Mar 15, 2013

How about now?

@harry1989

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harry1989

harry1989 Mar 20, 2013

Shouldn't

}());

be

})(); ?

Shouldn't

}());

be

})(); ?

@thefrontender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thefrontender

thefrontender Mar 21, 2013

@harry1989 Both are valid Javascript. But if you want an opinionated answer, try Crockford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taaEzHI9xyY&feature=youtu.be#t=33m39s

@harry1989 Both are valid Javascript. But if you want an opinionated answer, try Crockford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taaEzHI9xyY&feature=youtu.be#t=33m39s

@jswebschmiede

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

i use a window onload version. look https://gist.github.com/jswebschmiede/3660918

@coljung

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coljung

coljung Mar 30, 2013

Similar to this one: https://gist.github.com/necolas/1025811 , although i find that one much better.

coljung commented Mar 30, 2013

Similar to this one: https://gist.github.com/necolas/1025811 , although i find that one much better.

@franklinjavier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@franklinjavier

franklinjavier May 13, 2013

How about to pass the "document" as parameter into scope?

How about to pass the "document" as parameter into scope?

@mingyun

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

mingyun commented Nov 9, 2013

good

@3runoDesign

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

goood

@kimmykuang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kimmykuang

kimmykuang Dec 11, 2014

i think pass 'document' into scope is better

i think pass 'document' into scope is better

@ghprod

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghprod

ghprod May 15, 2015

Nice 👍

ghprod commented May 15, 2015

Nice 👍

@PokemonAshLovesMyTurkeyAndILikeYouTwo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment