3 ms·

For Dustin, since you're following the thread: The area you're covering is closely related to an active area of development within the JS frontend framework co

For Dustin, since you're following the thread: The area you're covering is closely related to an active area of development within the JS frontend framework community. They consider it hydration perf work and the working terminology is partial hydration or resumption/resuming rendering (there's a couple approaches/tradeoffs). In particular, the Marko team has a system under development that works this way without explicitly defined client/server pieces. They're mostly solving it on the server and streaming the HTML down since they have a priority on page load perf but the models look very close to me. I don't have a definitive piece to link as an intro and the concepts haven't made their way into the broader JS community but I thought you might be interested. I'm happy that hyperfiddle is still going, I recall the Clojure NYC presentation and this is looking a lot more polished.

hdjrudni 4y ago
There's a lot of gotchas with SSR and hydration. I got bit just today because Next.js hid all the complexity from me so I was surprised when localStorage didn't work. Just popped up an error about it being undefined -- in my browser. How could that be? Took me awhile to realize it was trying to render it server-side.
- grayrest 4y ago
  There's a lot of gotchas/drawbacks with the current approaches, which is why it's an active area of development. Remix, Astro, Qwik, and Marko are all taking different approaches at mixing client and server side rendering.
- southerntofu 4y ago
  > There's a lot of gotchas with SSR and hydration I don't mean to be dismissive, but most of us still do classic SSR (like we did in 90s/00s except maybe with Rust/Go instead of PHP) and it's still awesome and resource-friendly (both for server and client). I assume you meant there's problems with "hydrating" client-side scripts (Next.js in this case) and templates for use server-side. Which is fine if you need it! I'd just like to point out that 99% of web pages don't need any form of client-side rendering logic (apart from the browser's HTML/CSS rendering engine) and are much more user-friendly without any scripts running at all, even if you leave aside memory/privacy concerns. And if you really need some client-side interaction for some reason, i've found HTMX to be a very refreshing approach to this question. EDIT: To be clear, i'm not saying this for you specifically, but for someone who would read through this topic and currently believes they need client-side scripting to build "modern" websites.
  - dustingetz 4y ago
    (speaker here) I’m with you, HTMX is great for a very wide class of websites. our Photon technology is for next-gen stateful applications like an IDE or low-code tool, not websites. How can we scale cloud software applications to parity with desktop quality UIs and beyond? (this was not covered in the talk, we will clarify it, thank you for the feedback)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

hdjrudni 4y ago

There's a lot of gotchas with SSR and hydration. I got bit just today because Next.js hid all the complexity from me so I was surprised when localStorage didn't work. Just popped up an error about it being undefined -- in my browser. How could that be? Took me awhile to realize it was trying to render it server-side.

grayrest 4y ago
There's a lot of gotchas/drawbacks with the current approaches, which is why it's an active area of development. Remix, Astro, Qwik, and Marko are all taking different approaches at mixing client and server side rendering.
southerntofu 4y ago
> There's a lot of gotchas with SSR and hydration I don't mean to be dismissive, but most of us still do classic SSR (like we did in 90s/00s except maybe with Rust/Go instead of PHP) and it's still awesome and resource-friendly (both for server and client). I assume you meant there's problems with "hydrating" client-side scripts (Next.js in this case) and templates for use server-side. Which is fine if you need it! I'd just like to point out that 99% of web pages don't need any form of client-side rendering logic (apart from the browser's HTML/CSS rendering engine) and are much more user-friendly without any scripts running at all, even if you leave aside memory/privacy concerns. And if you really need some client-side interaction for some reason, i've found HTMX to be a very refreshing approach to this question. EDIT: To be clear, i'm not saying this for you specifically, but for someone who would read through this topic and currently believes they need client-side scripting to build "modern" websites.
- dustingetz 4y ago
  (speaker here) I’m with you, HTMX is great for a very wide class of websites. our Photon technology is for next-gen stateful applications like an IDE or low-code tool, not websites. How can we scale cloud software applications to parity with desktop quality UIs and beyond? (this was not covered in the talk, we will clarify it, thank you for the feedback)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]