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 jashkenas on Friday February 17, 2012 @01:36PM (#3604439)

There are smart ways to render client-side UI, and there are not-so-smart ways.

http://jsperf.com/dom-vs-innerhtml-based-templating/350

If you want to use a decent library, you can rest assured that your client-side templates will render far faster than the Ruby version of the same HTML.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Basecamp Next got to be so damn fast without using mu... by stock_toaster on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:26PM (#3604847)

Even considering I do not have an 8 core machine with 32 GB of ram sitting on my lap (or in my pocket)?

I realize that ruby is significantly slower than v8/JägerMonkey/Tracemonkey/etc, but is it so easy to discount the significant disparity between the average compute power of a server vs mobile/laptop?

I think a stronger counter argument would be flexibility, smaller http responses (and thus less latency), and possibly an argument that it is simpler or more straightfoward, in favor of client-side javascript templating/rendering, but rendering speed? Not so sure.

[ Parent | on HN ]