3 ms·

> this is faster than server side model since you are only loading what is changed and not the entire page again Not true. If you do proper caching and config

> this is faster than server side model since you are only loading what is changed and not the entire page again Not true. If you do proper caching and configure your nginx properly back-end rendering can be just as fast.

threeseed 9y ago
What you are saying technically makes no sense. SPA applications support the ability to update parts of a web page e.g. an article content might be 5K out of a 20K file. A server side website has to bring down the 20K page again and again as the user navigates through your site. Caching or web server configuration makes no difference here.
- dlandis 9y ago
  > A server side website has to bring down the 20K page again and again as the user navigates through your site. Caching or web server configuration makes no difference here. Browser caching, not server-side caching. The browser doesn't have to "bring down" the 20k page "again and again", it gets the assets out of its cache (html, js, css, images, etc), and then the JavaScript loads the 5k article when the DOM is ready. Hope you're not trolling. Non-SPA websites can be basically just as fast as SPA's, and in practice they are often faster since they are usually built without frameworks and have less JavaScripts.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    How is this hard to understand ? We aren't talking about CSS, JS, Images but purely about the HTML page. If you have a 20K page and 15K of that belongs to header, footer, sidebar then in a server side rendered site that 15K has to be downloaded for every page on the site. On a SPA site it only has to be downloaded once as you can dynamically switch out the other parts. If there was a mechanism in the HTML spec to tag parts of a page for partial caching then we wouldn't need SPA in most cases. But browsers only cache the entire HTML.
    - romanovcode 9y ago
      Your header and footer must be pretty horrible if they take 75% of HTML.

threeseed 9y ago

What you are saying technically makes no sense. SPA applications support the ability to update parts of a web page e.g. an article content might be 5K out of a 20K file. A server side website has to bring down the 20K page again and again as the user navigates through your site. Caching or web server configuration makes no difference here.

dlandis 9y ago
> A server side website has to bring down the 20K page again and again as the user navigates through your site. Caching or web server configuration makes no difference here. Browser caching, not server-side caching. The browser doesn't have to "bring down" the 20k page "again and again", it gets the assets out of its cache (html, js, css, images, etc), and then the JavaScript loads the 5k article when the DOM is ready. Hope you're not trolling. Non-SPA websites can be basically just as fast as SPA's, and in practice they are often faster since they are usually built without frameworks and have less JavaScripts.
- threeseed 9y ago
  How is this hard to understand ? We aren't talking about CSS, JS, Images but purely about the HTML page. If you have a 20K page and 15K of that belongs to header, footer, sidebar then in a server side rendered site that 15K has to be downloaded for every page on the site. On a SPA site it only has to be downloaded once as you can dynamically switch out the other parts. If there was a mechanism in the HTML spec to tag parts of a page for partial caching then we wouldn't need SPA in most cases. But browsers only cache the entire HTML.
  - romanovcode 9y ago
    Your header and footer must be pretty horrible if they take 75% of HTML.