Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

timr.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 286 posts

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#181

Post by hnthrowaway385 »

flimsypremise wrote: post #137

This article misses the single most important reason to use SSR: single language applications are single build applications. Frontend builds are basically a requirement for any application with a UI. You're always going to have CSS, and some degree of user interaction for even the simplest website, which means JS/TS. One of the most important developments for frontend assets in the past decade is dependency managemen…

JS has one of the most painful and ludicrous developer experiences in the industry (right next to Python, and C++).

Sane dependency management is NuGet, not NPM. Sane build tooling is dotnet build, not npm run build (is this multithreaded/parallel yet?). Sane CI is achieved via dotnet package; then chucked into whatever CI workflow.

It just works. You don’t need to mess with it. It adds negligible overhead.

The DOM is inefficient — entire page loads are quicker than rendering changes in-page (accounting for latency, and using chromium’s Blink renderer). The box model is inane. JS is a horrible, cobbled together language (like Python) initially designed by a naive. I would sooner write my own 2D renderer in WebGL than deal with HTML/CSS/JS/Rendering pipelines.

In my many years of being a web$hit, I have always had to fight the frontend ecosystem to stop being daft.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#182

Post by Maxion »

robertoandred wrote: post #122
ninkendo wrote: post #115

One of the fastest, lowest latency websites I use is HN, and it’s entirely server rendered. It’s also a massively popular website with probably thousands of hits per minute. Anyone who tells you server side rendering is too slow, probably has no idea what they’re talking about.

Server-side rendering can absolutely be slow, and client-side can absolutely be fast. It's all dependent on the quality of the developer.

And the complexity of the application, which isn't always up to the developer.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#183

Post by ecshafer »

bofadeez wrote: post #177

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality s…

I think the reality of web development is that outside a few minority of “apps”: figma, google maps, etc. is that basic html, js and css is more than enough. Maybe some jquery, or something like rails or php to update values server side before it’s sent out. Most websites are just text, with some pictures and some forms. Most frameworks are total overkill.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#184

Post by thrashh »

bofadeez wrote: post #177

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality s…

Even every significant website built 15 years ago not in JavaScript involved a framework. In Java, you got Spring. In Python, you got Django. In Ruby, you got RoR. In PHP, you got Symfony. etc.

Blaming frameworks seems misguided.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#186

Post by leecb »

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #171
ninkendo wrote: post #115

One of the fastest, lowest latency websites I use is HN, and it’s entirely server rendered. It’s also a massively popular website with probably thousands of hits per minute. Anyone who tells you server side rendering is too slow, probably has no idea what they’re talking about.

Hitting the “Reply” button on HN takes you to a new page with a textbox, taking over 500ms and a complete page reload. On some websites, that amount of latency is acceptable. But that could be instantaneous.

> taking over 500ms and a complete page reload

For me this is 45ms to transfer the 2 kB (compressed) of HTML; the whole process takes under 60ms total, which is pretty darn close to "instantaneous" for the "complete page reload."

EDIT: I'm in Texas, so most of this time is probably just round trip time to the west coast.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#187

Post by pjmlp »

bofadeez wrote: post #177

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality s…

Full on the spot.

Using traditional Java and .NET stacks for the last 20 years.

Naturally in the context of being yet another cog on the enterprise machine, doesn't always go that way, however when given the option, Java and .NET Web stacks as always.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#188

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

rwalle wrote: post #175

I am surprised that this topic keeps coming back and gets attention. I thought in the year 2023 this is a settled topic. Lots of hype from people who obviously never managed a real website or a real-world software project. On the non-technical side, traditional server/client separation is well understood by everyone and has all the tools any team ever needs, while SSR takes some learning -- it is added cost that does…

Server Side Rendering been established practice for a long time, going back to PHP/JSP/etc. It's just taking on new life the past couple years. There's pros and cons to both server and client rendering.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#189

Post by intelVISA »

bofadeez wrote: post #177

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality s…

It's an easy problem space, so in order to 'flex' you're forced to constantly over-engineer and complexify imo.

Re: Server-side rendering is a better choice for many applications (2020)

#190

Post by pjmlp »

thrashh wrote: post #184
bofadeez wrote: post #177

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality s…

Even every significant website built 15 years ago not in JavaScript involved a framework. In Java, you got Spring. In Python, you got Django. In Ruby, you got RoR. In PHP, you got Symfony. etc. Blaming frameworks seems misguided.

Yes, they have been relatively stable for the last 20 years, and focus on delivering what the browser does best, HTML and CSS.
Post reply on HN