4 ms·
Site is down but it seems like server side rendering which is pretty terrible. There are better solutions for Java developers such as teavm one which Codename O
by invalidname 4y ago
Site is down but it seems like server side rendering which is pretty terrible. There are better solutions for Java developers such as teavm one which Codename One built the web UI support. It supports both web assembly and plain JS. The latter has the advantage of smaller size.
Transpiles Java threads into async/await calls. Pretty cool stuff.
- pjmlp 4y agoJPro can also target WebAssembly.
- ziftface 4y agoWhat's so bad about server rendering
- invalidname 4y agoWell.. I come from the age of dumb terminals so trauma. We have powerful machines today. Using them like a dumb terminal rubs me the wrong way.
- ziftface 4y agoI've recently come to appreciate server rendering for its simplicity, at least for the tasks it is suited for. But I know what you mean. As a user, it's better to have local apps doing the real work.
- pjmlp 4y agoWelcome to cloud computing.
- invalidname 4y agoServerless is the new timeshare.
- pjmlp 4y agoThe new CGI actually.
- invalidname 4y agoYour code is running on their hardware. But I get your point...
- phendrenad2 4y agoSo it isn't terrible?
- cryptonector 4y ago- higher latency - uses more server resources per-client, therefore it's more expensive - harder to do SPA-like apps
- mirko22 4y ago- waiting for javascript to load is not considered latency but kills user experience - depends how you do it - not all apps need to be SPA but also you can render fragments if you really want
- phendrenad2 4y ago> - higher latency Which is a tradeoff, and it's okay as long as the client doesn't notice it. > - uses more server resources per-client, therefore it's more expensive Which is okay as long as the added expense is inconsequential (which it is). > - harder to do SPA-like apps Why?