2 ms·
That's not the only tricky part with this approach. Pages take ages to load because all rendering has to be done in the browser and can't be cached. The site co
by marrs 13y ago
That's not the only tricky part with this approach. Pages take ages to load because all rendering has to be done in the browser and can't be cached. The site completely breaks when JS isn't enabled, which discounts search engines and users who disable JS (whether you like it or not, some users do this). It's a brittle solution to a rare problem.
Isomorphic Javascript should be able to give the best of both worlds. I've been playing with Meteor and Derby recently. Of the two, Derby seems like the closest to what I'd want from a modern web framework.
- steveklabnik 13y agoClient-side rendering can often be _faster_. See sites like Bustle, for example, which is an Ember app that's super speedy. I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be cached." See http://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1kf84d/bustlecoms_speed/cboc81f http://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1kf84d/bustlecoms_sp... for more. Less than 1% of users have JavaScript disabled. Search engines don't care about pretty, so it's pretty easy to render just some data inside a NoScript tag.