I think you need to be more specific. It gets you different things for different scenarios and different goals.
-
-
-
Replying to @cbarrett
let's start with: relative to what? native apps or server-side rendered HTML?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
If u read the thread you'll see I specified: web dev à la 2005 when I last did it. Trying to catch up on the field
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cbarrett
ok cool. the most obvious benefit, then, is the ability to respond to user interaction without a full round-trip 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
if the user has flaky connectivity or lie-fi, this can be significant; lots of apps show diff views of the same data 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
also, allows you to optimistically assume that a change has succeeded (for example chat apps) and deal with failure only then 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
That helps. I get why AJAX is useful. I don't get why youd want to render all HTML in JavaScript as opposed to just the dynamic bits
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cbarrett
quite often they are deeply intertwined and rendering via templates is the best way to be sure you can do the dynamic parts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Glimmer (one of those newfangled JS thingies) takes tons of advantage of the static parts, but not having to divide the code 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
architecturally between static and dynamic is a net reduction in mental overhead and complexity in my opinion 2/2
-
-
Replying to @wycats
Thanks! That's helpful. I still think Id benefit from a side by side comparison of this stuff w/ vanilla JS + server side rendering
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.