if (a) { b(); c() }
if (a) b(), c() if (a) { b(); c() }
if (a) b(), c()Or you wouldn't, of course, if it weren't for some browsers being broken and unable to handle it.
As for "they aren't going to notice that 1% file size", you could keep saying that about small optimization after small optimization until your compiler's output is 10% bigger than the competition's, at which point you will start losing significant user base.
You're making a blanket statement about Twitter developing bad code because of a recent bug. It will be fixed.
But I don't think we need to think of it in terms of Twitter's scale at all. The point is that saving 1% for basically free, is saving 1% for basically free, and that's worthwhile no matter how big you are. On its own, it's a drop in the bucket, but the cumulative effect of many small low-opportunity-cost savings is a significant low-opportunity-cost saving.
IMO, the Javascript spec is kinda dumb for being so permissive, but it is covered in the spec, so it's legit to do it either way.
Whether that's a good thing or not.