3 ms·

Along the same lines I would argue that the problem solved by loaders is a symptom of using the wrong tools - too much JavaScript is possibly a symptom of abusi

by jheriko 15y ago

Along the same lines I would argue that the problem solved by loaders is a symptom of using the wrong tools - too much JavaScript is possibly a symptom of abusing it - instead of client side loader code, why not optimise the data/server behaviour instead for example? Just a thought...

maratd 15y ago
> instead of client side loader code, why not optimise the data/server behaviour instead This doesn't make any sense for a javascript-based client. The server code by definition is already as lean as it can be, because everything that could be moved to the client already has been. We can argue about the merits of having a client-heavy vs server-heavy code base, but that's not what this is about.
- jheriko 15y ago
  So, to clarify, my point... Having the client request only what it needs is a valid optimisation, but having the server send only what is needed for a given request can give the same benefit in a different way. It necessarily depends on the details of the situation, but it naively seems that it should be possible to not have users download 2MB of JavaScript if they aren't going to use it by rearchitecting the data or doing some server work, instead of sending them different JavaScript to manage that from the client. Perhaps even more naively, if this is done correctly it will reduce burden on both the client and the server instead of just the server (provided the cost of the loader is actually mitigated by the savings). With that in mind it can make sense regardless of whether you favour server or client bound implementations.
  - maratd 15y ago
    I think I understand what you're trying to say. Each page should have predefined javascript collections in the HTML, varying based on the need of the page. That's fine for a traditional layout, but most client-heavy applications do not load HTML every time a user clicks something. In my case, the application only loads the HTML once, on the initial visit, and from that point, it's all javascript. Re-working things to load HTML on every click would actually make things slower, since it has to fetch the HTML each time. This type of architecture makes a loader necessary.

by jheriko 15y ago

maratd 15y ago

> instead of client side loader code, why not optimise the data/server behaviour instead This doesn't make any sense for a javascript-based client. The server code by definition is already as lean as it can be, because everything that could be moved to the client already has been. We can argue about the merits of having a client-heavy vs server-heavy code base, but that's not what this is about.

jheriko 15y ago
So, to clarify, my point... Having the client request only what it needs is a valid optimisation, but having the server send only what is needed for a given request can give the same benefit in a different way. It necessarily depends on the details of the situation, but it naively seems that it should be possible to not have users download 2MB of JavaScript if they aren't going to use it by rearchitecting the data or doing some server work, instead of sending them different JavaScript to manage that from the client. Perhaps even more naively, if this is done correctly it will reduce burden on both the client and the server instead of just the server (provided the cost of the loader is actually mitigated by the savings). With that in mind it can make sense regardless of whether you favour server or client bound implementations.
- maratd 15y ago
  I think I understand what you're trying to say. Each page should have predefined javascript collections in the HTML, varying based on the need of the page. That's fine for a traditional layout, but most client-heavy applications do not load HTML every time a user clicks something. In my case, the application only loads the HTML once, on the initial visit, and from that point, it's all javascript. Re-working things to load HTML on every click would actually make things slower, since it has to fetch the HTML each time. This type of architecture makes a loader necessary.