3 ms·
I really don't get this whole SSR thing. You take a framework designed explicitly for dynamic client side code and use it to make a glorified old school framewo
by quantummkv 8y ago
I really don't get this whole SSR thing. You take a framework designed explicitly for dynamic client side code and use it to make a glorified old school framework (insert your choice of RoR, Django, Laravel, etc).
Why does anyone think this is a good idea? You end up re-implementing Rails on a foundation of quicksand and manage to throw the excellent standard libraries that come with those languages out in one stroke.
Is this a result of too much kool-aid? Or have we ended up with hippie bootcampers without a shred of knowledge in high level positions? It's depressing to watch really.
- silviogutierrez 8y agoI firmly believe defaulting to SSR/old-school is the way to go. And only add dynamic behavior when needed. But when you do need to add that dynamic behavior... things get hairy. See this comment for more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18289460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18289460
- kraftman 8y agoI went to a conference recently where one of the talks was a guy from comcast on 'Progressive Web App performance'. The two takeaways were that they had decided against ever using SSR (he didnt say why just acted like it was ridiculous), and that through various clever performance tricks they'd managed to get their page load time down from 30 seconds.. to 15.