Hacker News Reader

Comment by _pius | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't the right question be "why suffer the performance implications of server side rendering for something like partials?"

View on HN

Agreed. Client side rendering for most things is instant. Client side rendering scales better than server side, in my opinion. 1 user or 1,000 users using your website, will not affect the rendering time on the client's machine (just the data transfer times), but will affect the rendering time on the server.

actually i believe the right question would be "in which scenarios does it make sense to deliver them rendered, and in which scenarios does it make sense to render on the client"; which was the intention of my original question.

based on the responses it's clear that my question sounded like a leading one. it was not and i employ both methods actively.

Accessibility, for one.

Definitely. I wasn't posing the question, just pointing out that the performance hit is actually doing it server side.

I see this one come up time and time again, Accessibility is not implicit to server side rendering and is easily managed via client side rendering. It is one of my companies specilizations we do client side web app accessibility and to be honest building an accessibility layer with client side logic is far easier than dealing with it via the degree of separation that the server creates. There are many tricks that we use to fool JAWS into doing what we want that are just not available via server side rendering. Accessibility is not hindered by client side rendering if anything it can be enhanced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com