3 ms·
I'm a big fan of pure HTML pages because of performance and simplicity, but the techniques presented here are neither of those. For performance, server-side re
by cs510 6y ago
I'm a big fan of pure HTML pages because of performance and simplicity, but the techniques presented here are neither of those.
For performance, server-side rendering is just bad. It won't scale to high volume traffic, cost too much money and is complicated to maintain. Hosting a static HTML files is more performant than that.
For simplicity, the current protocol relies on so much "magics" to give the impression of simplicity. I think that's just an illusion of simplicity.
- arvindamirtaa 6y agoIf you can get away with hosting static html files, there's not much else that's more performant. The comparison is only between server rendered HTML vs backend API + some frontend rendering locally (which is not as performant) and more importantly is a lot more complex to implement technically.