Here's some off the top of my head:

* Separation of concerns -- You can keep your server side data
transfer and change the front end easily by working with the
javascript, rather than reworking both.

* Lax Security -- It's easier to get into trouble when you're simply
inlining HTML received, compared to building the elements.  Getting
into the same bad habits as SQL injection. It might not be a big deal
now, but it will be later on.

* Obfuscation -- It's easier to debug one layer of code rather than
two at once. It's thus also easier to maintain the two layers of code,
and easier to see at which end the system is failing.

Rob

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A fair number? Anyone but Godmar?
>
> On 12/7/2011 5:02 PM, Nate Vack wrote:
>>
>> OK. So we have a fair number of very smart people saying, in essence,
>> "it's better to build your HTML in javascript than send it via ajax
>> and insert it."
>>
>> So, I'm wondering: Why? Is it an issue of data transfer size? Is there
>> a security issue lurking? Is it tedious to bind events to the new /
>> updated code? Something else? I've thought about it a lot and can't
>> think of anything hugely compelling...
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Nate
>>
>