"Client side only rendering" is an idea that had its heyday some years back (AngularJS (2009), React (2013)) when the web was still primarily consumed through desktop browsers - where it worked "well enough" for a time.
The "optimized for mobile" HTML-first / just-in-time JavaScript approach is currently being used by Qwik.
Qwik is interesting not because it's new and shiny but because it seems to make an effort to respect the constraints of the (mobile) web.
It uses an entirely different architecture compared to any of today's popular JS frameworks.
It is squarely aimed at highly interactive eCommerce sites, not "web applications in general", to create something that works "well enough" to displace the need for device specific native (eCommerce) applications.
Strictly speaking Qwik does not concern itself with the "client-side application" as a whole but only the UI and its visual components. It's entirely possible that they want to leave the option open of putting the "non-visual client side application" in a web worker instead.
So, for every DOM element I get two Identifiers in my program: The ID and a variable. This doubles my effort compared to creating the elements from within JS.
It's unclear whether Qwik (or something like it) will be the "next big thing" but its approach seems to be a good fit for a certain category of next generation mobile web applications.
I feel this discussion is going a bit beyond the scope and it is not very polite to take over a post. So, maybe we should start a new thread about the future of webdesign somewhere else.
This post was about the advantages (or possibly disadvantages) of Javascript, not about slow networks. IF "JavaScript has become the largest bottleneck of web performance", this was real serious. It is just not what I currently can see.
Let be serious about JS performance. I had real concerns about that, and if the performance was just that bad, I never hat thought one second about using JS to build applications.
WebPageTest puts it about 4.6 seconds for "Mobile, Fast 3G"
Maybe you have heard that 3G was switched off (at least in germany)? We are also not supporting windows XP anymore, but who cares? I checked the page on the oldest devices I could get, a 10 year old mobile phone, my oldest tablet and others, but none of the devices was nearly as slow as mentioned. Indeed, the bottleneck is 3G, not the JS performance. But with a slow web, any interaction will be slow, regardless of the technology.
YES, we should care for poor performance. And YES, maybe QWIK is the next big thing in webdesign. But todays mobile devices are far from being slow, my daughters smartphone has more memory than my laptop. Why should we not make use of this power? You can do more with a browser than looking on websites.
(again: Please stay on topic. I really like to learn about new trends in web design and performance, but maybe we start a new post on that? Thank you very much!)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
🤔
As somebody already pointed out that's a bit out of date.
"Client side only rendering" is an idea that had its heyday some years back (AngularJS (2009), React (2013)) when the web was still primarily consumed through desktop browsers - where it worked "well enough" for a time.
The "optimized for mobile" HTML-first / just-in-time JavaScript approach is currently being used by Qwik.
Qwik is interesting not because it's new and shiny but because it seems to make an effort to respect the constraints of the (mobile) web.
Qwik Todo Demo on StackBlitz
That's why Qwik will do that work for you.
It's unclear whether Qwik (or something like it) will be the "next big thing" but its approach seems to be a good fit for a certain category of next generation mobile web applications.
I feel this discussion is going a bit beyond the scope and it is not very polite to take over a post. So, maybe we should start a new thread about the future of webdesign somewhere else.
This post was about the advantages (or possibly disadvantages) of Javascript, not about slow networks. IF "JavaScript has become the largest bottleneck of web performance", this was real serious. It is just not what I currently can see.
Let be serious about JS performance. I had real concerns about that, and if the performance was just that bad, I never hat thought one second about using JS to build applications.
Maybe you have heard that 3G was switched off (at least in germany)? We are also not supporting windows XP anymore, but who cares? I checked the page on the oldest devices I could get, a 10 year old mobile phone, my oldest tablet and others, but none of the devices was nearly as slow as mentioned. Indeed, the bottleneck is 3G, not the JS performance. But with a slow web, any interaction will be slow, regardless of the technology.
YES, we should care for poor performance. And YES, maybe QWIK is the next big thing in webdesign. But todays mobile devices are far from being slow, my daughters smartphone has more memory than my laptop. Why should we not make use of this power? You can do more with a browser than looking on websites.
(again: Please stay on topic. I really like to learn about new trends in web design and performance, but maybe we start a new post on that? Thank you very much!)