3 ms·
So, Wt is about having the server do a bunch of computational work for rendering the UI. Now, I'm not a web developer, so I may be talking nonsense, but I don't
by einpoklum 6y ago
So, Wt is about having the server do a bunch of computational work for rendering the UI. Now, I'm not a web developer, so I may be talking nonsense, but I don't see how that's reasonable:
1. It doesn't scale, or if you're rich - it's annoying to scale.
2. It interferes with the client/user's ability (albeit theoretical) to decide how they want to present the information
3. It seems to go against what are, or used to be, the principles of the web: Interlinked, clear-text, markup which the client renders as it sees fit.
- pgquiles 6y agoDo you realize what Wt does is exactly the same thing PHP, Rails and others do and have been doing for decades? So: 1. It does scale and it's easy to scale. In fact, one of the use cases of Wt is massive applications (e. g. Facebook apps) 2. No, it does no interfere with client's ability to decide how they want to present the information. What Wt does is the same thing any other web toolkit is doing: gracefully degradation, fallback, etc depending on your browser, browser version, and whether you have JavaScript enabled or not 3. How is Wt's output not interlinked, clear-text, markup which the client renders? It seems you only know Angular, React and other client-side toolkits. The server-side approach has been (an is still) working for decades, do not disregard it.
- roywiggins 6y agoThe Wt backend spits out HTML/JS (or sometimes PDF or svg for charts), like any other server-side framework. It's not replacing the browser's renderer.
- einpoklum 6y ago<html> <body> <img src="/path/to/my/rendered_output.png"> </body> </html> This is also spitting out HTML...