 |
 |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Doran, Michael D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > You had earlier asked the question whether to do things client or server > > side - well in this example, the correct answer is to do it client-side. > > (Yours is a read-only application, where none of the advantages of > > server-side processing applies.) > > One thing to take into consideration when weighing the advantages of > server-side vs. client-side processing, is whether the web app is likely to > be used on mobile devices. Douglas Crockford, speaking about the fact that > JavaScript has become the de fact universal runtime, cautions: "Which I > think puts even more pressure on getting JavaScript to go fast. > Particularly as we're now going into mobile. Moore's Law doesn't apply to > batteries. So how much time we're wasting interpreting stuff really matters > there. The cycles count."[1] Personally, I don't know enough to know how > significant the impact would be. However, I understand Douglas Crockford > knows a little something about JavaScript and JSON. > > It's certainly true that limited energy motivates the need to minimize client processing, but the conclusion that this then means server generation of static HTML is not clear. Current trends certainly go in the opposite direction, look at jQuery Mobile. - Godmar