4 ms·

> The alternative of doing things old school with server side templates is ok, but it massively slows down your iteration speed through reliance on tight coupli

by tomc1985 6y ago

> The alternative of doing things old school with server side templates is ok, but it massively slows down your iteration speed through reliance on tight coupling between backend and frontend. Huh? Something like Rails lets you iterate on server-side stuff extremely quickly. There is a lot of functionality you can implement that doesn't need JS at all

PretzelFisch 6y ago
At this point, I think we'll start to see an electron shell that you can install apps/extensions into. The main thing that will prevent this from gaining traction is ios.
mawise 6y ago
+1 to this. I wanted to build a private blogging app/site with a big focus on speed and performance, it might not be popular anymore but I went with Rails. Server-side rendering lets the browser do what it's good at. The only thing that would make pages load faster would be to stick them behind a CDN (which doesn't play nice with the privacy aspect). If anyone is interested I put up a page talking about the project: https://simpleblogs.org https://simpleblogs.org
- nawgz 6y ago
  See but the parent comment is about "web applications" not "web pages". You are describing a web page - there is limited or no interactivity, what is there can be reasonably handled by forms. No one doubts that React isn't the tool for this area
  - learc83 6y ago
    Take a look at the hey email client. It's built by basecamp--the guys who created rails. As for web app vs web page--it's a very blurry line, and it's rare that I end up building something where the entire site could be considered a web app. Usually only some small pieces of it demand enough interactivity to bother with the complexities of using a UI framework, and for that I wrap a small React or a Svelte app in a div and throw it on a page within the larger site.
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    > No one doubts that React isn't the tool for this area you would think so, but there are an awful lot of people don't seemed to be stopped by that
nawgz 6y ago
Never developed in Rails - does it handle: * composable templates * reusable JS snippets * hot reloading in your browser And additionally, given that the topic is "building web applications", I can't really understand how you think you can build interactivity without JS. Are you proposing form-based updates or is your understanding of "application" different than GP and mine?
- oreoftw 6y ago
  Yes.
  - nawgz 6y ago
    Can you link me some docs? I would love to see how the modern tools I learned at my outset compare to the classics.
    - theduder99 6y ago
      google.com
      - stuartq 6y ago
        Not constructive.
      - nawgz 6y ago
        As much as your creative sass added to the conversation, I asked a few concrete questions - specifically trying to understand composability, reusability of JS, and what the fellow means by "interactivity" given they claim you can do lots without JS. They followed it up with a 1-word answer - pretty ridiculous if you ask me - and so I asked an expanding question so I could make my own conclusions of what the other user considers to be acceptable levels of composability and reusability. While I could undoubtedly find that info myself, I am not the one advocating for Rails here, nor am I the one claiming using Ruby for browser interactivity is a strong idea, so it seems to me like the onus isn't really on me to go search this out
    - 6y ago

PretzelFisch 6y ago

At this point, I think we'll start to see an electron shell that you can install apps/extensions into. The main thing that will prevent this from gaining traction is ios.

mawise 6y ago

+1 to this. I wanted to build a private blogging app/site with a big focus on speed and performance, it might not be popular anymore but I went with Rails. Server-side rendering lets the browser do what it's good at. The only thing that would make pages load faster would be to stick them behind a CDN (which doesn't play nice with the privacy aspect). If anyone is interested I put up a page talking about the project: https://simpleblogs.org https://simpleblogs.org

nawgz 6y ago
See but the parent comment is about "web applications" not "web pages". You are describing a web page - there is limited or no interactivity, what is there can be reasonably handled by forms. No one doubts that React isn't the tool for this area
- learc83 6y ago
  Take a look at the hey email client. It's built by basecamp--the guys who created rails. As for web app vs web page--it's a very blurry line, and it's rare that I end up building something where the entire site could be considered a web app. Usually only some small pieces of it demand enough interactivity to bother with the complexities of using a UI framework, and for that I wrap a small React or a Svelte app in a div and throw it on a page within the larger site.
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  > No one doubts that React isn't the tool for this area you would think so, but there are an awful lot of people don't seemed to be stopped by that

nawgz 6y ago

Never developed in Rails - does it handle: * composable templates * reusable JS snippets * hot reloading in your browser And additionally, given that the topic is "building web applications", I can't really understand how you think you can build interactivity without JS. Are you proposing form-based updates or is your understanding of "application" different than GP and mine?

oreoftw 6y ago
Yes.
- nawgz 6y ago
  Can you link me some docs? I would love to see how the modern tools I learned at my outset compare to the classics.
  - theduder99 6y ago
    google.com
    - stuartq 6y ago
      Not constructive.
    - nawgz 6y ago
      As much as your creative sass added to the conversation, I asked a few concrete questions - specifically trying to understand composability, reusability of JS, and what the fellow means by "interactivity" given they claim you can do lots without JS. They followed it up with a 1-word answer - pretty ridiculous if you ask me - and so I asked an expanding question so I could make my own conclusions of what the other user considers to be acceptable levels of composability and reusability. While I could undoubtedly find that info myself, I am not the one advocating for Rails here, nor am I the one claiming using Ruby for browser interactivity is a strong idea, so it seems to me like the onus isn't really on me to go search this out
  - 6y ago