[mfer]

It's not just that things are too complicated... the JS being sent to browsers is large and a lot of work. That requires more bandwidth, processing, and power usage on client devices. This eats phone, tablet, and laptop batteries.

[alunchbox]

But... that's one of the pro's of not having to do the rending cycle on the server. Also caching of framework libraries off CDN's and such.

I don't see much merit in moving back to server side rendering aside from obfuscation & helping SEO ratings (web crawlers have a hard time with SPA)

[mfer]

> But... that's one of the pro's of not having to do the rending cycle on the server. Also caching of framework libraries off CDN's and such.

This doesn't save battery life on a device. If someone downloads a few meg of JS their browser has to parse and execute that JS locally. This use of processing uses power. If that same person had half as much JS to parse and execute it would use less power.

A CDN does not save from this happening.

When power use happens on a server it's more on the server but less on devices with batteries. Batteries aren't used up as quickly (both between recharges and in their overall life).

A server side setup can cache and even use a CDN to only need to render parts that change.

My points are that it's not all cut and dry along with considering batteries.

Oh, and older systems (like 5 year old ones)... surfing the web on an older system can be a pain now because of JS proliferation.

[mfer]

> Oh, and older systems (like 5 year old ones)... surfing the web on an older system can be a pain now because of JS proliferation.

This matters because of the poor, the elderly (on a fixed income), and those who aren't in first world countries don't have easy access to money to keep getting newer computers.

Then there is the environmental impact of tossing all those old computers.

So, there is both a people and environment impact.

[grishka]

I think there's some kind of weird mentality among web devs that client-size computations are free, but server-side ones cost resources because you do more of them the more users you have.

[jpttsn]

That’s not so weird. It’s like IKEA shipping you disassembled furniture: they don’t have to pay for assembly (nor for shipping as much air). The client bears the cost of assembly, so if you don’t pay the client’s costs, it’s free.

[deergomoo]

They are free, just not to the client.

[RandallBrown]

You're right it's not all cut and dry.

The two things that use the most battery in a phone are the radio and the screen.

If you can do most of the work client side, the phone can turn off the radio and save battery. The amount of battery savings of course depends greatly on what the application is actually doing.

[mekkkkkk]

An interesting development is that the argument "common libraries will be cached in the browser" is no longer true. Chrome and other browsers are starting to scope their caches by domain, to mitigate tracking techniques that used 304 request timing to identify if the client had visited arbitrary URLs.

Yes, I'm aware that "it will be cached" lost most of its glory when bundling became mainstream, but I still hear it as an argument when pulling things from common CDNs.

[combatentropy]

In a few tests I ran, I found rendering to be fast and lightweight. If you already have prepared the associative array of values, then the final stage of combining it with a template and producing HTML doesn't strain the server, and so it doesn't help your server much to move that part to the client.

The server's hardest work is usually in the database: scanning through thousands of rows to find the few that you need, joining them with rows from other tables, perhaps some calculations to aggregate some values (sum, average, count, etc.). The database is often the bottleneck. That isn't to say I advocate NoSQL or some exotic architecture. For many apps, the solution is spending more time on your database (indexes, trying different ways to join things, making sure you're filtering things thoroughly with where-clauses, mundane stuff like that). A lot of seasoned programmers are still noobs with SQL.

Anyway, if rendering is lightweight, then why does it bog down web browsers when you move it there? I don't think it does. If all you did was ship the JSON and render it with something like Handlebars, I think the browser would be fine, and it would be hard to tell the difference between it and server-side rendering.

I think what causes apps to get slow is when you not only render on the client but implement a single-page application. (It's possible to have client-side rendering in a multipage application, where each new page requires a server roundtrip. I just don't hear about it very much.) Even client-side routing need not bog down the browser. I've tested it with native JavaScript, using the History API, and it is still snappy.

I guess what it is, is that the developers keep wanting to bring in more bells and whistles (which is understandable) especially when they find some spiffy library that makes it easier (which is also understandable). But after you have included a few libraries, things start to get heavy. Things also start to interact in complex ways, causing flakiness. If done well, client-side code can be snappy. But a highly interactive application gets complicated quickly, faster than I think most programmers anticipate. Through careful thought and lots of revision, the chaos can be tamed. But often programmers don't spend the time needed, either because they find it tedious or because their bosses don't allot the time --- instead always prodding them on to the next feature.

[rorykoehler]

And state is not reflective of reality in the database which is a terrible idea for most apps