4 ms·
Caching cannot help you with initial page loads, which is probably important when you have a content focused sites. Rendering the content via JavaScript is slo
by voidr 11y ago
Caching cannot help you with initial page loads, which is probably important when you have a content focused sites.
Rendering the content via JavaScript is slower than just having it in your HTML. It's true that JS execution has become insanely fast, however, initial JS execution is not as fast, because it requires that JIT to kick in. Even if JS execution becomes infinitely fast, you still have to work with the DOM, which is horribly slow and there are no known ways to make it fast. Google, Yahoo and others have prove with hard numbers that users care about speed, even when we are talking about milliseconds.
I highly recommend doing some research on how browsers and caching actually work before falling into the pit of false belief.
- ry_ry 11y agoTo be fair to him, he did specifically mention isomorphic, in which case the js is running on both sides and the idea is that initial load delivers server-generated markup, giving the user content immediately then doing all the databinding later. Also, tricks like that are what users generally recognise as speed - similarly Twitter's optimistic xhr submission appears to work instantly, then goes off and actually does it's thing retrospectively. Fwiw I think a fully client side js cms app is a moderately rubbish idea for a variety of reasons, but js rendering of dynamic content absolutely has merit. It's a little more nuanced than slamming somebody's 'pit of false belief' because they like client view rendering. :)