4 ms·

I've been working with Rails for several years. First, it was fullstack rails, then we got a giant mess of jquery, tried to solve it by moving to an SPA with Vu

I've been working with Rails for several years. First, it was fullstack rails, then we got a giant mess of jquery, tried to solve it by moving to an SPA with Vue... and since then our productivity really dropped. While Vue works, I miss the productivity of having a single server app to maintain, instead of two. I'm considering moving back to Rails only, with the aid of some library like Unpoly for the nice ajax unobtrusive javascript helpers. Congrats on the release, and thanks for helping to keep alive the model of server-rendered apps, while everyone else appears to be moving to SPAs.

acangiano 7y ago
You might find Rails + Turbolinks + Stimulus to be relatively headache-free.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with some good ol server side template rendering. Non trivial pages will take longer to render though.
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  How is that possible if you're comparing the same data loaded on the client vs the server? Server has a faster Internet connection and connects to the DB directly (not over HTTP). Sure, clients load "faster" if you mean they don't actually load everything. Apples to oranges. If a page needs to make 5 DB queries to present a bunch of data, those 5 DB queries will be faster on the server than from the browser. So will parsing the response and transforming it into HTML.
  - theptip 7y ago
    You can do the first render without loading everything from the DB, then load your more expensive data while the page is loading. Or do infinite scrolling and only load 10 rows from the DB, where you would have to render more rows to be usable if you didn't have infinite scrolling.
  - pmontra 7y ago
    If you're creating a desktop application in the browser, a SPA is the way to go or the experience will be nightmarish for both users and developers. For anything else a classical server rendered web app is OK. Example: Amazon is not a SPA.

acangiano 7y ago

You might find Rails + Turbolinks + Stimulus to be relatively headache-free.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with some good ol server side template rendering. Non trivial pages will take longer to render though.

simplecomplex 7y ago
How is that possible if you're comparing the same data loaded on the client vs the server? Server has a faster Internet connection and connects to the DB directly (not over HTTP). Sure, clients load "faster" if you mean they don't actually load everything. Apples to oranges. If a page needs to make 5 DB queries to present a bunch of data, those 5 DB queries will be faster on the server than from the browser. So will parsing the response and transforming it into HTML.
- theptip 7y ago
  You can do the first render without loading everything from the DB, then load your more expensive data while the page is loading. Or do infinite scrolling and only load 10 rows from the DB, where you would have to render more rows to be usable if you didn't have infinite scrolling.
- pmontra 7y ago
  If you're creating a desktop application in the browser, a SPA is the way to go or the experience will be nightmarish for both users and developers. For anything else a classical server rendered web app is OK. Example: Amazon is not a SPA.