How Basecamp Next got to be so damn fast without using much client-side UI

Re:How Basecamp Next got to be so damn fast without using mu... by roc on Friday February 17, 2012 @10:54AM (#3603729)

> "I really don't understand what's so compelling - unless those exact same actions are actually (YAGNI) used as endpoints of a web service"

Well of course it's not going to appear all that compelling after you rule out the most compelling use case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Basecamp Next got to be so damn fast without using mu... by latch on Friday February 17, 2012 @11:09AM (#3603788)

Hey, I totally agree that if your actions are gonna be consumed by clients other than your own UI, it makes total sense. However, I've seen people [strongly] advocating this approach even when this isn't the case..that's what I don't get.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Basecamp Next got to be so damn fast without using mu... by roc on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:40PM (#3604682)

Well there are other benefits. [1]

Though I suspect you're just talking about cases that are best chalked up to: there's no accounting for the logic of the illogical.

[1] If you want to ensure a separation between display code and business logic, it's not a bad way to draw a line; some heavily data-driven problems do tangibly benefit from fetching JSON and formatting on the client; solutions that have multiple views on essentially the same data sets benefit in much the same way that solutions with multiple clients benefit; etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]