4 ms·

> Even if the resources between the two pages are shared and those shared resources properly cached, time is lost relative to the more instantaneous process of

by ysavir 4y ago

> Even if the resources between the two pages are shared and those shared resources properly cached, time is lost relative to the more instantaneous process of making partial edits to an already loaded page and only loading the JavaScript necessary to pull in features that weren't on the page navigated away from Technically, yes. Whether it's significant difference is reflective of the engineering, and sometimes, on the product design. And the beauty of not using JS navigation is that you don't need to draw the page using JS templates. The dynamic data, sure, but the rest can load pretty instantaneously. Out of curiosity, when's the last time you built a web app that doesn't rely on JS navigation, and architected it with that in mind? What was that experience like, and how does it compare to your JS experiences?

shadowgovt 4y ago
It was Ruby on Rails, it was forms-based, and it was hell. To personal taste these days, I much prefer writing a heavyweight client and a thin server that emits raw data and does very little HTML rendering or HTML pre-processing to the alternatives I tried before. But even if the server is doing a lot of heavy lifting, the end user experience can benefit both in performance and bandwidth from minimizing page reloads. There's some pretty spiffy client and server template technologies now that let you get pretty close to write once, render on either the client or the server depending on which is cheaper. And there are other applications for which manipulating history is a better fit. Otherwise, how would you mail history into a web experience that doesn't match very well to page navigation at all, like a WebVR walk where you want to be able to return to a location via URL, or a music player where you want the history to go back and forth between the songs you played?

by ysavir 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

It was Ruby on Rails, it was forms-based, and it was hell. To personal taste these days, I much prefer writing a heavyweight client and a thin server that emits raw data and does very little HTML rendering or HTML pre-processing to the alternatives I tried before. But even if the server is doing a lot of heavy lifting, the end user experience can benefit both in performance and bandwidth from minimizing page reloads. There's some pretty spiffy client and server template technologies now that let you get pretty close to write once, render on either the client or the server depending on which is cheaper. And there are other applications for which manipulating history is a better fit. Otherwise, how would you mail history into a web experience that doesn't match very well to page navigation at all, like a WebVR walk where you want to be able to return to a location via URL, or a music player where you want the history to go back and forth between the songs you played?