I agree that it's become feasible, but even for relatively 'light' scripting my experience is that already very soon something like jQuery becomes worth using despite the increase in payload size.
For example, I'm currently working on a project with mostly plain js, and I've already had to spend quite a bit of time adding code to make relatively basic things work across browsers (including mobile).
Even though it's much less work than it used to be, it's still extra time and code that others will now also have to understand. And who knows what other browser issues linger or will pop up as more features are added!
The worst part is that if I'd be allowed to lazy load some of the images and make a few small other optimizations, I would've shaved off enough Kb's to load multiple version of jQuery...
"The worst part is that if I'd be allowed to lazy load some of the images and make a few small other optimizations, I would've shaved off enough Kb's to load multiple version of jQuery..."
We really need to stop comparing the size of JS and images. Images do not block the app while JS often block it in many ways: download, parsing, slow executing at first (JIT), GC pauses.
Also, hard limits on download size seem silly to me. Either it's worth spending those couple kb for jQuery or it's not, but you shouldn't need to compensate for it by reducing payload in other places.
For example, I'm currently working on a project with mostly plain js, and I've already had to spend quite a bit of time adding code to make relatively basic things work across browsers (including mobile).
Even though it's much less work than it used to be, it's still extra time and code that others will now also have to understand. And who knows what other browser issues linger or will pop up as more features are added!
The worst part is that if I'd be allowed to lazy load some of the images and make a few small other optimizations, I would've shaved off enough Kb's to load multiple version of jQuery...