3 ms·
> It was created to solve the problem of single page web apps running slowly. Wait a second, is this premise in any way true? Admittedly I don't do isomorphic
by dasil003 12y ago
> It was created to solve the problem of single page web apps running slowly.
Wait a second, is this premise in any way true? Admittedly I don't do isomorphic JS so maybe I'm out of touch, but in my mind the primary driver of the development of isomorphic JS is simply the pain of seeing repetition of code across the front and back ends.
Obviously there is an appealing symmetry and reduction in toolchain complexity from isomorphic JS, and it's certainly an idea worth exploring, but I don't see it as holding any kind of dramatic promise. At the end of the day servers and clients are very different beasts that are not fundamentally served by attempting to make them look the same; there are probably a lot of incidental gains when focusing on small details of the code, but I don't see how it translates into a paradigm shift. Not that I dislike the idea, but is the article setting up a big strawman?
- cyberpanther 12y agoStraw Man Concept = build it up, knock it down, and create a solid final solution I'd be happy with that.
- nailer 12y agoExactly. Everyone I know who's built isomorphic apps has mainly done it for: - SEO - having a static ver of a single page app for Google - Efficency, delivering a rendered view to browsers when they're not transitioning from another rendered view. I've never heard 'single page apps are slow' being the primary reason before. The load time of a JS binding is pretty low. Most people don't generally realise they're in a single page app until they move around the app atand in those cases the user perception is of speed.
- cyberpanther 12y agoSo officially Google says it can crawl these kinds of sites; however, from experience this is not the case. So until the future comes there is https://prerender.io/ https://prerender.io/.