4 ms·

>It's the trend not because it looks new Yes, it is. 90% of the client side javascript interfaces I've seen provide absolutely no benefit to the user, and oft

>It's the trend not because it looks new Yes, it is. 90% of the client side javascript interfaces I've seen provide absolutely no benefit to the user, and often are outright worse than a normal html interface (twitter). Your complaints about RoR's terrible templates do not generalize to all server side template engines, so the whole thing should be framed accurately as a comparison of your preferred javascript mvc framework vs rails templates.

bluetidepro 14y ago
For the record, I think Twitter is one of the only sites out there that have done JS interfaces the right way. I love the Twitter interface over any Twitter client or the old html interface. I think it's much smoother and works great for their platform. But hey, I'm just one man! Ha
- TylerE 14y ago
  I'm like 99% they went back to server-side a few months ago for performance reasons.
  - ashleyw 14y ago
    I think they just render the initial page on the server, then from there the client takes care of it. It makes sense, since it's common to include the data payload in the HTML to save a request anyway, and it's not much more work to just render the HTML too using the same templates as the client uses.
    - ksec 14y ago
      I actually think that is where the path we should go, Hybrid of both tech. Serving the initial view with HTML and the rest via client side JS.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- richardw 14y ago
  "A single tweet page is 2MB. This is one of the big challenges for Single Page Apps." https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z123j3wxwrm5jb0tv23ajl0pnvnlx3kgx04 https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z123j3wxwrm5jb0tv23... Source: Comparison of various pages: http://mike.teczno.com/notes/bandwidth.html http://mike.teczno.com/notes/bandwidth.html
nateabele 14y ago
Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users (over traditional server-side MVC + client-side Ajax + DOM manipulation, or whatever). Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Again, to be clear, this does nothing for users. Unless, of course, you consider that reduced barriers to implementing rich interactivity induce developers to use it create better user experiences, and that purpose-specific tools reduce the surface area for experience-disrupting bugs (which, statistically, you'd have more of, since you're operating at a lower level of abstraction and having to constantly repeat yourself [unless, of course, you decided to generalize all your Ajax & DOM manipulation and wrote a framework... oh wait]). But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone. (Disclosure: the foregoing is based on ~1 year of experience developing applications with AngularJS).
- papsosouid 14y ago
  I'm not sure how you would come to such a conclusion, you must have some very serious bias clouding your ability to objectively read what people say. I've written several client side javascript apps, although obviously I'm not dumb enough to actually write them in javascript when there's so many "tolerable language -> javascript" compilers available. >Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users I didn't say anything like that. I said 90% of people writing client side javascript interfaces are doing so for no user benefit, just following a fad. There's plenty of cases where an interface is better in javascript, unfortunately that's only ~10% of the cases people are using javascript for. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Compared to using horrible shit like ruby on rails perhaps, but compared to decent tools using a javascript framework is a significant step backwards. That's one of the reasons we only do it when it helps the user, rather than all the time just to make our stuff worse. >But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone You really need to make the effort to read what you reply to. If you just want to make up nonsense to respond to, that's what blogs are for.

bluetidepro 14y ago

For the record, I think Twitter is one of the only sites out there that have done JS interfaces the right way. I love the Twitter interface over any Twitter client or the old html interface. I think it's much smoother and works great for their platform. But hey, I'm just one man! Ha

TylerE 14y ago
I'm like 99% they went back to server-side a few months ago for performance reasons.
- ashleyw 14y ago
  I think they just render the initial page on the server, then from there the client takes care of it. It makes sense, since it's common to include the data payload in the HTML to save a request anyway, and it's not much more work to just render the HTML too using the same templates as the client uses.
  - ksec 14y ago
    I actually think that is where the path we should go, Hybrid of both tech. Serving the initial view with HTML and the rest via client side JS.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
richardw 14y ago
"A single tweet page is 2MB. This is one of the big challenges for Single Page Apps." https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z123j3wxwrm5jb0tv23ajl0pnvnlx3kgx04 https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z123j3wxwrm5jb0tv23... Source: Comparison of various pages: http://mike.teczno.com/notes/bandwidth.html http://mike.teczno.com/notes/bandwidth.html

nateabele 14y ago

Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users (over traditional server-side MVC + client-side Ajax + DOM manipulation, or whatever). Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Again, to be clear, this does nothing for users. Unless, of course, you consider that reduced barriers to implementing rich interactivity induce developers to use it create better user experiences, and that purpose-specific tools reduce the surface area for experience-disrupting bugs (which, statistically, you'd have more of, since you're operating at a lower level of abstraction and having to constantly repeat yourself [unless, of course, you decided to generalize all your Ajax & DOM manipulation and wrote a framework... oh wait]). But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone. (Disclosure: the foregoing is based on ~1 year of experience developing applications with AngularJS).

papsosouid 14y ago
I'm not sure how you would come to such a conclusion, you must have some very serious bias clouding your ability to objectively read what people say. I've written several client side javascript apps, although obviously I'm not dumb enough to actually write them in javascript when there's so many "tolerable language -> javascript" compilers available. >Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users I didn't say anything like that. I said 90% of people writing client side javascript interfaces are doing so for no user benefit, just following a fad. There's plenty of cases where an interface is better in javascript, unfortunately that's only ~10% of the cases people are using javascript for. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Compared to using horrible shit like ruby on rails perhaps, but compared to decent tools using a javascript framework is a significant step backwards. That's one of the reasons we only do it when it helps the user, rather than all the time just to make our stuff worse. >But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone You really need to make the effort to read what you reply to. If you just want to make up nonsense to respond to, that's what blogs are for.