3 ms·
That's the old Ruby on Rails argument. In that specific case it only made sense when there were no similar frameworks for faster languages, but that's hardly th
by ratww 7y ago
That's the old Ruby on Rails argument. In that specific case it only made sense when there were no similar frameworks for faster languages, but that's hardly the case today.
- ryanbrunner 7y agoIronically though, I'd be willing to bet that end-user performance on most traditional server-side-rendered apps using the "heavyweight" RoR framework is far better than the latest and greatest SPA approach.
- tjpnz 7y agoIn a previous life I did back office development for ecommerce. We had two applications, one RoR monolith and a "modern" JavaScript Meteor SPA. The SPA was actually developed to replace the equivalent functionality in the RoR application but we ended up killing it and sticking with what we had. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish server side rendering is just as good, if not better than the latest and greatest in client side rendering.
- ratww 7y agoIt really depends. I've worked with a Preact SPA where the time to initial render was faster than the HAML templates it replaced. But then, again, that was an outlier. If your target is speed, traditional SSR or static pages are the best bet, anyway.