Compiled Web vs. Interpreted Web

bitsandbuzz.com

35 points·bbuffone··5 comments

Don't think it really captures it.

"Compiled web" I guess is just client server, but running in a browser. Now the "compiled stuff" can be some embedded runtime (flash, java, silverlight) or compact obfuscated javascript, but really, its client/server separation all over a again (with a lot of the upsides, and some of the downsides, but not the installation hassle).

I think the happy medium that a lot of web sites like is the classic web app, with just enough ajax to help with the user experience (but not ajax dominated) - works well for content heavy web apps.

For JS, more and more people are compressing/obfuscating/compiling it - how does that affect the web in general - people can't see how it works and reuse it...

Not sure the compressing/obfuscating of scripts makes the application model similar to a Java/Swing or a Flash/Flex model. The granularity for a Web app is infinitely greater than an Swing/Flex app. Having the UI Structure (HTML), Style (CSS), Logic (JS) interpreted at runtime allows the server to take generate dynamically many part of the applications. This is the big difference, not that the scripts are compressed/minimized.

Now, I agree, some applications overuse AJAX, and often, single page is an overkill with lot of drawbacks and complications.

But the big sites, such as YouTube, Facebook, seems to be using these technologies the right ways.

Good point re the granularity - so you think even with a "compiled" JS ajax app, its still more open then the equivalent swing/flex?

I think it's more a matter of control than performance. Web programming is cheap and you don't need to marry with a tools provider.

Agree, this is the "business reason" I was talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com