Live data from Hacker News

Does Google execute JavaScript?

stephanboyer.com

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They disliked flash for different reasons. Google for search and apple because flash games were too powerful, jobs wanted those games turned into iPhone apps. The offical reasons were speed and security, which was obviously a farce since all the major browser vendors wrote their own PDF viewers which is both slow and known for tons of security issues as well. They could have just as easily wrote their own fast and se…

Well let's remember that while Adobe claimed that they could have gotten Flash to run on an original iPhone in 2007, that when Flash finally came to Android, it required a 1Ghz processor and 1 gig of RAM. The first iPhone had a 128MB of RAM and a 400Mhz processor. it wasn't until 2012 that the first iPhone had 1Ghz+ processor. The very reason that Apple could get away with slower processors was because Apple was depe…

I was maintaining a port of the Opera browser for Japanese feature phones in 2007. We supported flash in 11Mb of RAM: 6 for the browser, 5 for flash. That included the screen buffer IIRC. We ran regular desktop web sites under these conditions just fine (with 2007 expectations regarding interop). The experience may not have been great, but that was much more an issue of tiny screens without touch support than anything else. Had Apple wanted to, they would absolutely have been able to support flash on the iPhone. We could on much worse hardware. Not doing so was about controlling the platform, not about technical limitations.

http://www.operasoftware.com/press/releases/mobile/opera-del...

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at Google's cached version, you can see that the JS is executed Correct me if I am wrong but when I look at the cached version of the homepage ( http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hN5yCky... ), I don't see that the JS has been interpreted.

The "Network error" in the top left is a JS result. Also, since you linked to the source view, you'll see that there actually isn't anything in the body but the script being loaded, whereas "Full version" shows the user interface was correctly initialised.

Disable JavaScript in your browser when viewing the cached page. All you will see is an empty page.

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#63
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Network error" in the top left is a JS result. Also, since you linked to the source view, you'll see that there actually isn't anything in the body but the script being loaded, whereas "Full version" shows the user interface was correctly initialised.

Disable JavaScript in your browser when viewing the cached page. All you will see is an empty page.

Now I'm feeling a bit stupid, will slowly walk away and hope I can get by with "it's Jan 1st and I didn't get much sleep" as an excuse...

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#66
This is a subject that really irks the engineering side of me. It's utterly ridiculous that engineering and efficiency decisions are so deeply affected by whether or not the largest search engine will properly index your content.

Why is it that Google doesn't get flak for not discovering content that's engineered to send the absolute minimum over the wire, cache intelligently in localStorage and IndexedDB, and scale well by distributing the appropriate amount of rendering work to the client agent? Why can't I expose a (JSON/)REST-API-to-deep-link mapping and have Google just crawl my JSON data and understand (perhaps verifying programmatically some percent of the time) that the links they show in search will deep link appropriately to the structured JSON content they crawled?

It's such a waste of talent and resources to force server-side rendering. There's obviously the resource cost of transmitting more repetitive content over the wire, and requiring servers to do more work that the client could do. (Yes, even with compression this will still be a higher cost, because more repeated sequences reduces the value of variable-length encoding). But more than that, what bothers me is that there's this false truth that server-side rendering is a requirement for modern architectures, which must result in hundreds of thousands of wasted engineering hours trying to enable the idea of server-side and client-side rendering with the same code.

This is not about time-to-first-byte either. Yes, the user-perceived latency matters, but the idea that server rendering even solves this problem is again utterly false. Sure, the time to very first byte ever may be faster, but that's not a winning long-term strategy unless you never expect your client to request the same content twice (or come back to your site at all). When properly cached and synchronized, the client-side-only app has many orders of magnitude faster TTFB, because it's coming from disk or even memory, and can be shown immediately. The only thing left to do is ask the server "what's new since my last timestamp?"

All of these benefits seem to be completely disregarded 99% of the time because the golden "SEO" handcuffs are already on. I really hope we can get away from this mindset as a community and rather let the better-engineered and sites with the best and fastest UX over time will start driving search engine technology, instead of the other way around.

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#67
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could join Google :)

The chances of becoming a part of the search team are still very low. Even most Googlers won't know the exact details.

But within Google, you could ask somebody and get the right answer.

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#68
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is unlikely because then SEO specialists would generate and send such data to improve the positions of their websites. But Google could use this to discover new URLs that are not linked anywhere.

Some URLs are private by design, so I think it would be an awfully bad idea to discover new URLs in this way.

[deleted]

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#69
post #53

While google is certainly the main search engine most people use, isn't it to some point also very important what other engines such as bing, yandex, baidu etc. do. If you have a professional website you want to be found also by these other engines. Until also these support javascript you may end up with a hybrid SEO architecture anyway which means nothing was gained?

> If you have a professional website you want to be found also by these other engines. Do you really? Except if you are interested in the Chinese market. In fact the inverse is probably more true: if you run one of those other search engines, then you want to be as good at indexing any particular site as Google is.

Well at first, Google is the major player but not at 100% market share, some figures say 80%. Different by countries, continents...

Second supporting other platforms is also important, think of FB, Twitter, etc.

So either this really becomes the new standard that everyone supports or you may end up with a hybrid or traditional approach if you care about other platforms as well - imho you should.

Re: Does Google execute JavaScript?

#70

This is a subject that really irks the engineering side of me. It's utterly ridiculous that engineering and efficiency decisions are so deeply affected by whether or not the largest search engine will properly index your content. Why is it that Google doesn't get flak for not discovering content that's engineered to send the absolute minimum over the wire, cache intelligently in localStorage and IndexedDB, and scale…

Uhh, the answer to all your "why"s is pretty much" because that would be an open door to abuse"? For better or worse, Google has figured that the best way for them to have the most accurate indexing is to get things the exact same way browsers do, and figure it out from there.
Post reply on HN