5 ms·

hint: I was referring to the client/server part with those examples if it must be in JS to satisfy the entire sentence, vtop, any node.js application, etc > T

hint: I was referring to the client/server part with those examples if it must be in JS to satisfy the entire sentence, vtop, any node.js application, etc > The tagline is direct and obvious. What part of running both client-side and server-side don't you understand? going by the examples I gave, the fact that it doesn't clear up any ambiguity one might have over that tag line my first reading, it seemed like it was talking about any program, written in JS, that could be run on either server or client, which is obviously meaningless. so I decided to look further, something the site itself didn't clear up it doesn't mention implementation approaches, effects it would have, (well, it mentions the effects (all 2 of them), giving no actual reason for any of it) what it could of said, "The same application runs on both server and client, along-side one another. By sending pre-rendered HTML, it greatly speeds up initial page load and allows for more accessibility" like, that takes no effort, and that no-effort wasn't made in the creation of this site at this point I'm literally re-typing my previous comment so there isn't much point in continuing. - - - I have zero problem with the approach itself, sending HTML is great, per-rendering is great. I have a problem with the site. its only as good as a list of libraries, nothing more

morgante 12y ago
> if it must be in JS to satisfy the entire sentence, vtop, any node.js application, etc What? "Any node.js application" most definitely won't successfully run client-side. Similarly, "bash" most definitely won't run client-side. Additionally, most client-side frameworks don't effortlessly work in a DOMless environment. > that could be run on either server or client, which is obviously meaningless How is that meaningless? That's literally the entirety of what's important about isomorphic apps: the same codebase can be run client-side and server-side.
- RubyPinch 12y ago
  I'm not typing for personal gratification, I've explained this > Similarly, "bash" most definitely won't run client-side what is a terminal, what is linux, what is windows even. you know "client-side" can refer to multiple things, yes? browser, computer, etc > that could be run on either server or client, which is obviously meaningless I've mentioned this in relation to my examples given, 3 times now, stop intentionally making this difficult I can run program A on my computer, I can run program A on a server. this has no value to mention, as such it is a meaningless personal comprehension of the tagline. if you want me to explain that a 4th time, I'll be glad to - - - you must realize the world exists in /and out/ of the browser, javascript exists outside of the browser and server, Atom comes to mind
  - morgante 12y ago
    So, I'm pretty sure you're just being intentionally stupid. In the context of JavaScript, it should be fairly obvious that the "client" is a web browser.
    - RubyPinch 12y ago
      the fact that you couldn't understand me 3 times in a row, should easily prove the fact that misunderstandings / poor explanations can be given and it wasn't fairly obvious, I work software, not web-dev. using a browser as an application host is something I know of, but I do not spend any time thinking about. as I said, atom jumps to mind that being said, I knew that my interpretation was wrong (I actually had to explain that my initial view was wrong, 4 times, to you, my god) so I looked for more information which is the meat of my complaint, it doesn't provide information - - - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415448 - - - all you have been doing is telling me that my interpretation, which I considered incorrect, is incorrect. I don't know what you are trying to achieve with that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415363 "hmm, maybe I'm missing something here" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415420 me saying my interpretation was meaningless, and also very specific use of the word "either" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415472 me saying my interpretation was meaningless again and then you finally tell me my interpretation was wrong. I think I know its wrong.

morgante 12y ago

> if it must be in JS to satisfy the entire sentence, vtop, any node.js application, etc What? "Any node.js application" most definitely won't successfully run client-side. Similarly, "bash" most definitely won't run client-side. Additionally, most client-side frameworks don't effortlessly work in a DOMless environment. > that could be run on either server or client, which is obviously meaningless How is that meaningless? That's literally the entirety of what's important about isomorphic apps: the same codebase can be run client-side and server-side.

RubyPinch 12y ago
I'm not typing for personal gratification, I've explained this > Similarly, "bash" most definitely won't run client-side what is a terminal, what is linux, what is windows even. you know "client-side" can refer to multiple things, yes? browser, computer, etc > that could be run on either server or client, which is obviously meaningless I've mentioned this in relation to my examples given, 3 times now, stop intentionally making this difficult I can run program A on my computer, I can run program A on a server. this has no value to mention, as such it is a meaningless personal comprehension of the tagline. if you want me to explain that a 4th time, I'll be glad to - - - you must realize the world exists in /and out/ of the browser, javascript exists outside of the browser and server, Atom comes to mind
- morgante 12y ago
  So, I'm pretty sure you're just being intentionally stupid. In the context of JavaScript, it should be fairly obvious that the "client" is a web browser.
  - RubyPinch 12y ago
    the fact that you couldn't understand me 3 times in a row, should easily prove the fact that misunderstandings / poor explanations can be given and it wasn't fairly obvious, I work software, not web-dev. using a browser as an application host is something I know of, but I do not spend any time thinking about. as I said, atom jumps to mind that being said, I knew that my interpretation was wrong (I actually had to explain that my initial view was wrong, 4 times, to you, my god) so I looked for more information which is the meat of my complaint, it doesn't provide information - - - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415448 - - - all you have been doing is telling me that my interpretation, which I considered incorrect, is incorrect. I don't know what you are trying to achieve with that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415363 "hmm, maybe I'm missing something here" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415420 me saying my interpretation was meaningless, and also very specific use of the word "either" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8415472 me saying my interpretation was meaningless again and then you finally tell me my interpretation was wrong. I think I know its wrong.