4 ms·
Yes _if_, but many websites have moved on to client side rendering because if done right it delivers a better user experience for the 99% of users that have JS
by mantap 7y ago
Yes _if_, but many websites have moved on to client side rendering because if done right it delivers a better user experience for the 99% of users that have JS turned on, because there is no latency between page transitions.
Sure, passive content such as nytimes.com can work without JS (although some of their interactive articles would not), but anything more complicated will often be done with client side rendering these days.
- sitkack 7y ago> no latency between page transitions Not true, latency scales with CPU capacity on the client. SPAs now exist with client side rendering to mask the bloat in the site plus its dependencies. If you have a SPA arch but you did a page load per click, you would die. But all sites creep up to 500ms page load times regardless of their starting stack and timings.