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

Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

carter.sande.duodecima.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 328 posts

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#191

Post by aurelius83 »

StavrosK wrote: post #109
TeMPOraL wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's faster. The whole point of the article is that it's not true. It's not the only article that disproves it, and honestly, it's not difficult to notice it. Just go to any blog running off a static site generator; loading times of pure HTML webpages on good connection are so fast they whole thing outruns client-side page switches even if the page is already in memory.

Case in point, navigation on my site is pretty fast (to me, at least) and doesn't use much JS at all: https://www.stavros.io (I promise I'll reply to your email soon)

Sure, I mean all you're doing is basically loading up static content. In which case SSR HTML will perform just fine, but you do happen to use client side logic for your comments section which also makes sense to me. A SPA for your site isn't really the use case for SPA.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#192

Post by t0astbread »

peteforde wrote: post #176
azimuth11 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t blame junior devs using React and other frameworks to try to build more responsive applications. That’s where the demand is. I wouldn’t say it’s easier to build in these SPA frameworks nor harder. Attention to detail is something people recognize or learn over time.

I actually blame the old guard for not putting in enough time and energy to mentor juniors. It didn't have to end up like this. As for whether an SPA is harder or easier, that's not really the relevant dimension. You should not be making technology decisions for your company based on what your new junior devs are comfortable with. They will actually level up faster if they are forced to take what they've learned and…

> bash, git, docker, AWS, postgres, webpack, and the whole concept of a virtual DOM

That's very far fetched. A React app can just be the default template from CRA + some place to host the generated files (like Netlify if you want something simple). You don't need to know any of the above.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#193

Post by peteforde »

t0astbread wrote: post #192
peteforde wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually blame the old guard for not putting in enough time and energy to mentor juniors. It didn't have to end up like this. As for whether an SPA is harder or easier, that's not really the relevant dimension. You should not be making technology decisions for your company based on what your new junior devs are comfortable with. They will actually level up faster if they are forced to take what they've learned and…

> bash, git, docker, AWS, postgres, webpack, and the whole concept of a virtual DOM That's very far fetched. A React app can just be the default template from CRA + some place to host the generated files (like Netlify if you want something simple). You don't need to know any of the above.

Sure, you can get an example of a React component working on a webpage. I'm talking about the daily lived experience of a working junior developer trying to build something real using typical tools for 2019.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#194

Post by nkurz »

detaro wrote: post #183
greenhatman wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never found a bug on there, and I've been on it many times. I'd love if you can show me how to reproduce this bug. I just don't have this experience with SPAs breaking. I actually have no idea where it's coming from.

It doesn't happen 100 % of the time, but right now going to the homepage, clicking one of the listings in the "newest listings" box, and then returning to the homepage through the browser back button triggered it.

I am able to reproduce this bug with Safari on a Macbook. I clicked on an item in "newest", then quickly pressed Cmd-Left to return to the previous "page". The front page reappears, but I'm unable to scroll with arrow keys or trackpad. An additional press of Esc returns the expected functionality.

It seems to be a fast and responsive site when it works, though.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#195

Post by ignoranceprior »

amelius wrote: post #124
jakobegger wrote: post #3

I don't get client side navigation. It's a worse experience in every way. It's slow, often doesn't support things like command-click, it usually breaks the back button, and even if it doesn't it breaks the restoration of the scroll position. The only thing worse is a custom scroll UI. Why do people try to reinvent the most basic features of a webbrowser? And if they do, why do they always only do a half-assed job at…

Curious, how would you implement Facebook's infinite scroll with only static pages?

https://mbasic.facebook.com/

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#196

Post by thekingshorses »

kowdermeister wrote: post #76
bloaf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example of a site which does it well?

There are many good ones, but after a quick bookmark search, this shop is done really well, imho: https://www.shopflamingo.com/

This is what makes it worse.

If you scroll down on the page, and click on the link, it takes you to a new page. Works great.

If you use browser back button, it takes you to the previous page, but scroll position is lost.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#197

Post by shard972 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #101
tiborsaas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's faster. If you don't have to download all the content again, force the browser to re-render everything, then by design you just get the new content from the server faster, if you have to download anything at all. The idea exists since the introduction of AJAX. Furthermore, you don't lose state, which makes things much more simple. Imagine a simple image gallery. You just update the tag, update the URL wi…

> Because it's faster. The whole point of the article is that it's not true. It's not the only article that disproves it, and honestly, it's not difficult to notice it. Just go to any blog running off a static site generator; loading times of pure HTML webpages on good connection are so fast they whole thing outruns client-side page switches even if the page is already in memory.

> webpages on good connection are so fast

Not everyone has this, espicially when your someone like myself who writes informational websites for people who won't be connected to any internet for hours at a time.

Super fast response times don't cut it when your response time is non existent at the moment.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#198

Post by nkurz »

compumike wrote: post #68

(Disclosure: I'm Carter's desk-neighbor at Triplebyte.) I think there's actually a middle ground where you can utilize some of the more modern techniques to actually do better than the pure static pages approach, while still using normal browser-based page navigation. As a personal challenge, I wanted to see what could be done about performance for a recently-launched side project: the Ultimate Electronics Book [1],…

> Any techniques I'm missing?

Not sure what would make it faster, but thought I'd report that with Safari 10.1.2 the site is currently broken for me. The MathJax equations never load, and I get text mixed with spinning circles.

Javascript Console contains: [Error] SyntaxError: Cannot declare a let variable twice: 'e'. (anonymous function) (compiled_postbody-544dfbba31d691e567064ba96e9eec29f4257fe5909a4ddb5218cd36d823e215.js:1).

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#199

Post by thekingshorses »

bloaf wrote: post #57
tiborsaas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's faster. If you don't have to download all the content again, force the browser to re-render everything, then by design you just get the new content from the server faster, if you have to download anything at all. The idea exists since the introduction of AJAX. Furthermore, you don't lose state, which makes things much more simple. Imagine a simple image gallery. You just update the tag, update the URL wi…

Do you have an example of a site which does it well?

It requires special attention to do it right. It should be more about what works best for your product.

https://reddit.premii.com - Uses client side navigation. Try it on mobile and then desktop. Its not perfect, but works really good for what I want. Its hosted as a static site. I make request to reddit directly to get the content.

Re: Browsers are pretty good at loading pages

#200

Post by compumike »

nkurz wrote: post #198
compumike wrote: post #68

(Disclosure: I'm Carter's desk-neighbor at Triplebyte.) I think there's actually a middle ground where you can utilize some of the more modern techniques to actually do better than the pure static pages approach, while still using normal browser-based page navigation. As a personal challenge, I wanted to see what could be done about performance for a recently-launched side project: the Ultimate Electronics Book [1],…

> Any techniques I'm missing? Not sure what would make it faster, but thought I'd report that with Safari 10.1.2 the site is currently broken for me. The MathJax equations never load, and I get text mixed with spinning circles. Javascript Console contains: [Error] SyntaxError: Cannot declare a let variable twice: 'e'. (anonymous function) (compiled_postbody-544dfbba31d691e567064ba96e9eec29f4257fe5909a4ddb5218cd36d823…

Thanks for the bug report. I’ll try to reproduce.

Edit: I'm unable to reproduce this with Safari 12.1.1. Did some searching and this is a known bug in Safari 10 which was resolved in 2017: https://github.com/webpack-contrib/uglifyjs-webpack-plugin/i... / https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171041 -- I will try to workaround.

Post reply on HN