7 ms·

I'm not bashing the article - I'm referring to the mindset necessary for the fact that this article even needed to be created. Server-side rendering should have

• sanderjd 12y ago
  What you're missing is the whole part of the article that talks about why many people migrated to that mindset. You are dismissing the problems out of hand, as unimportant and easy to work around, which is frustrating for the many of us who changed our mindsets in search of a better solution to those problems, which client-side-heavy apps absolutely are. But the better solution had trade-offs; it spoke to many real problems with the fully server-side rendered approach, but caused new problems. Now we're starting to find solutions to those new problems without giving up the entire approach. That's a good thing. Your comments don't seem to argue that it's a good thing, but rather that the whole endeavor has been folly, which, for many people, just isn't true!
  • chrisdotcode 12y ago
    The oft-touted claim is that client-side templating is easier, but they're the same, really. The server solution is literally using the same exact templating engine and code. What people are conflating is "doing things in the client with JavaScript" and "rendering templates in JavaScript", which are two entirely different domains. You can't access many cool features client-side without JavaScript, full stop. But rendering things on the client, and presenting an absolutely un-usable design without turning-completeness is not content-first design.