Live data from Hacker News

The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

deno.com

101–110 of 371 posts

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#101
post #81

In theory, the "modern" frontend frameworks could be useful for a subset of applications. In practice, they are wildly overused, largely (IMHO) because front-end developers have forgotten how to build without them. If I gave this as an example, people would say I'm being unfair to the front-end folks. But since Deno posted it, I think it's fair say that it's overkill to use a front-end framework like React (mentioned…

[deleted]

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#102
post #2

And the future beyond that will be client-side rendering. In the beginning everything was rendered on the mainframe; then CICS allowed partial screen updates and even dynamic green screen design. Then the early web where everything was server which made the job of web indexing much easier. Then we moved back to rich client apps -- applets, flash, eventually SPAs -- with no way for search engines to easily index thing…

[deleted]

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#103
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not arguing they aren't useful. Just that no backend dev is ever jealous of what's happening with front end frameworks.

Another interesting question : are frontend developers jealous of what the backend developers are doing, or are they not?

I sure was when I had to do front end work. Finally got out of anything front-end for good and it's probably been the single most pleasant change in my career ever. I didn't start out doing front end work though, so I could see while I was doing it how ridiculous it was compared to almost any other domain in software dev and only getting worse. A good portion of front end devs I meet have not done anything else so they don't have a point of reference.

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#104
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caching also works for client side rendering of course (you can usually cache the entire client side app so that the browser doesn't have to hit the network at all to start running client side code).

> you can usually cache the entire client side app so that the browser doesn't have to hit the network at all to start running client side code This is also true for Web apps that do not have meaningful amounts of client-side code. > Caching also works for client side rendering There are obviously a lot of differences in how caching works, but client-side caching is generally strictly worse than doing so on the serve…

As with SSR vs CSR in general, I think which is best depends on how much interactivity there is on the page. And also how much can be done entirely on the client side (it is possible to cache data client side too and make the app work entirely offline).

As an extreme example, something like https://www.photopea.com/ would be a nightmare to use if it was server-side rendered. Or consider something like Google Maps. For things like ecommerce that are mainly focussed on presenting information I agree that client side rendering doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But that isn't the whole web.

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#105
post #11
post #3

If web sites have to so dynamic, I much prefer that the computation involved is done on their machine than on mine. I simply don't trust random web sites enough to let them run code on my machines.

What is it you dont trust? This Fear Uncertainty & Doubt clashes heavily with the excellent security sandbox the web browser is. What is the harm you are afraid of? What are you supposing the risk is/what's in jeapordy here?

JS allows for fingerprinting. I only run JS on a opt-in basis on like my bank and some pages I trust. You don't miss much really.

https://amiunique.org/fp

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#106
post #2

And the future beyond that will be client-side rendering. In the beginning everything was rendered on the mainframe; then CICS allowed partial screen updates and even dynamic green screen design. Then the early web where everything was server which made the job of web indexing much easier. Then we moved back to rich client apps -- applets, flash, eventually SPAs -- with no way for search engines to easily index thing…

The client-server wheel of life just keeps turning, and turning, and turning. It's an eternal human truth: each generation yearns to improve on the previous generation's efforts. This server-client zeal to improve has been tremendously productive of good ideas over the last few decades. It will continue. Hopefully saving power and CO2 can be the focus of the next couple of turns of the great wheel.

Don't know why this comment was downvoted - it's the truest take here I can spot. The fact is that the factors that make one versus the other more preferable (the state and quality of frontend / backend tooling and environments, compute power and rendering capabilities of servers vs clients, round trip time cost vs responsiveness requirements etc etc) are continually changing over time and that's what's causing the back and forth swing, but lessons from previous iterations are generally learned.

I wouldn't be shocked if we sooner or later saw language-level support (think of something like Elm, improved) for writing "just" code and then later marking up which parts execute where, and the communications and state synchronization crud and compiling down to the native language is just handled.

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#107

It's obviously nonsense. The lowest latency cache and state storage is clientside. You can piss around with multi regions and SSR to minimize latency but that's just placing a lot of regional caches near your users. The nearest place is in their actual browser -> offline first is the future

[deleted]

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#108
post #81

In theory, the "modern" frontend frameworks could be useful for a subset of applications. In practice, they are wildly overused, largely (IMHO) because front-end developers have forgotten how to build without them. If I gave this as an example, people would say I'm being unfair to the front-end folks. But since Deno posted it, I think it's fair say that it's overkill to use a front-end framework like React (mentioned…

> And that for users with slow browsers, slow/spotty Internet, etc., an architecture that uses a heavy front-end framework produces a worse overall experience than what most e-commerce sites were able to do in 1999.

I think this is heavily dependent on company focus (and to some extent - the data requirements of the experience)

Basically - I think you can create a much stronger, more compelling experience on a site for a person with a bad/slow connection with judicious usage of service_workers and a solid front end framework.

But on the flip side... Making that experience isn't trivial, requires up front planning, and most companies won't do it.

Re: The future (and the past) of the web is server side rendering

#109
post #35

> Performance is higher with the server because the HTML is already generated and ready to be displayed when the page is loaded. but the page is loaded later because you have to wait for the server to perform this work. There is no reduction in total work, probably an absolute increase because some logic is duplicated. If there is a speed improvement it is because the server has more clock cycles available than the c…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN