5 ms·

You almost confirm his point: > Well, I’ve got a pretty good setup for starters: Fibre, 16GB RAM. You're using a fairly decent desktop setup, and a top-of-the

You almost confirm his point: > Well, I’ve got a pretty good setup for starters: Fibre, 16GB RAM. You're using a fairly decent desktop setup, and a top-of-the-line mobile setup, and there's no talk about server-side specs. So yes, it's true that "The premise that server-side HTML generation is faster than client-side HTML generation is simply false." -- in your one particular, very specific use case.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The server has to do it for everybody, right? If it scales at all, no server is powerful enough. But mobile makes it more complex.
- Retric 11y ago
  If you can afford to do X on a server. Then spending 10x the resources to load in 1/10 or better yet 1/100th the time scales just fine. Consider, there is no way for a single users machine to do a Google search in any reasonable time frame. Google search works because they can scale out to enough machines to keep everything important in RAM which drastically reduces the workload per request. They can also cache results.
jhpriestley 11y ago
Put some numbers up. This whole debate is driven by so much vague thinking and so many unfounded assumptions. What realistic, year 2016 HTML client is so slow that it can't run 100K or so of string interpolation in a millisecond or two? Quite aside from the supposed benefits of performing computation on a server, the idea that web applications are bottlenecked by HTML generation is already absurd.
- falcolas 11y ago
  Mobile Chrome. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11366272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11366272
  - jhpriestley 11y ago
    Here's a benchmark: http://jsperf.com/dom-vs-innerhtml-based-templating/1079 http://jsperf.com/dom-vs-innerhtml-based-templating/1079 It looks like mobile chrome can perform 500k string interpolations in a second, each one being about 500 bytes. So the time for 100 kilobytes would be approximately half a millisecond.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

The server has to do it for everybody, right? If it scales at all, no server is powerful enough. But mobile makes it more complex.

Retric 11y ago
If you can afford to do X on a server. Then spending 10x the resources to load in 1/10 or better yet 1/100th the time scales just fine. Consider, there is no way for a single users machine to do a Google search in any reasonable time frame. Google search works because they can scale out to enough machines to keep everything important in RAM which drastically reduces the workload per request. They can also cache results.

jhpriestley 11y ago

Put some numbers up. This whole debate is driven by so much vague thinking and so many unfounded assumptions. What realistic, year 2016 HTML client is so slow that it can't run 100K or so of string interpolation in a millisecond or two? Quite aside from the supposed benefits of performing computation on a server, the idea that web applications are bottlenecked by HTML generation is already absurd.

falcolas 11y ago
Mobile Chrome. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11366272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11366272
- jhpriestley 11y ago
  Here's a benchmark: http://jsperf.com/dom-vs-innerhtml-based-templating/1079 http://jsperf.com/dom-vs-innerhtml-based-templating/1079 It looks like mobile chrome can perform 500k string interpolations in a second, each one being about 500 bytes. So the time for 100 kilobytes would be approximately half a millisecond.