4 ms·
This is basically a +1 reply but I feel strongly about this point and wish to add my own rant. This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the se
by 3princip 12y ago
This is basically a +1 reply but I feel strongly about this point and wish to add my own rant.
This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the server is so mindbogglingly inefficient - compared to delegating to clients whose computing power is idling 99% of the time. Not to mention separation of UI from the core functionality and other benefits.
JS in browsers is incredibly fast nowadays. I can't remember the last time I ran into performance issues. Angular my not be the most efficient but it's a stepping stone in the direction of client-side apps + RESTful APIs which I think will be the rule rather than exception in the future.
Lots of features are in the pipeline which will make client-side apps even faster and more elegant (shadow DOM, Object.observer).
- philsnow 12y ago> This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the server is so mindbogglingly inefficient - compared to delegating to clients whose computing power is idling 99% of the time. s/idling/conserving battery life/ much of the original article's criticism was aimed at angular apps on mobile devices.
- JustSomeNobody 12y agoHi. So you're responsible for the increased battery usage on my mobile device. Please stop. Also, can you please test your code on a device that came out _last_ year? You know, so that you can make sure it's not sluggish and frustrating to use.
- joewood 12y agoI would have thought a page reload from the server would use much more battery than a simple digest/apply in Angular.
- polynomial 12y agoIs there an Angular engineer who can speak to this?