 engine in everything today...

------
carsongross
Money quote from the article:

 _The new admin would make a return to more classic architecture with some
modernizations. Our approach would be ERB views and server-side rendering,
with the use of Turbolinks, and a lightweight custom JavaScript binding
system. This allowed us to tackle problems of code duplication and developer
productivity in a single blow._

As always, the devil is in the details and I'm looking forward to seeing what
their JS binding system looks like, but the pendulum appears to be swinging
back towards server-side rendering and models, even amongst the cool kids.

I have been working on a small library for doing HTML partial AJAX
programming, using fairly straight-forward HTML attributes and traditional
server side rendering (plus some goodies like custom HTTP header support,
timers, etc.):

[http://intercoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org)

I'm using it successfully in a few projects and very much enjoy the simplicity
of the whole approach when contrasted with full MVC systems.

~~~
tericho
Can we please drop the "cool kids" cliche? It's a tired generalization.

Clearly at this point both architectures work, it's childish to see this as an
argument for server-side rendering. Obviously it works, so do client MVC
systems.

The value in this article is the humble detailing of their mistakes that many
of us also experience in our careers.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I think part of that is a reaction to how many people jumped on to the client-
side JS framework bandwagon very early, because it was "the next big thing",
but before the tools were ready for production.

I've had to deal with more than my fair share of crappy, hacked-together Ember
apps that were developed like this. There have been too many breaking changes
to upgrade, performance is bad, an they're full of hacks to work around
deficiencies that existed back then.

Even though we actually have production-ready frameworks now, that sort of
thing can leave a bad taste in your mouth. Especially when you see the same
mistakes made by people jumping onto the Meteor bandwagon, for example. But
it's defintiely something to try
engine in everything today... 

 ------ 
 carsongross 
 Money quote from the article: 

  _ The new admin would make a return to more classical computer architecture with some 
 modernizations. Our approach would be ERB view and waiter - side rendering, 
 with the use of Turbolinks, and a lightweight customs JavaScript constipate 
 system. This allowed us to tackle problems of code duplicate and developer 
 productivity in a single blow. _ 

 As always, the monster is in the details and I'm looking forward to seeing what 
 their JS binding arrangement looks like, but the pendulum appears to be swinging 
 back towards waiter - side rendering and mannequin, even amongst the cool child. 

 I have been working on a small library for doing HTML partial AJAX 
 scheduling, using fairly straight - forward HTML attributes and traditional 
 waiter slope rendering (plus some goodies like custom HTTP header support, 
 timers, etc. ): 

 [ http://intercoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org) 

 I'm using it successfully in a few projects and very much love the simplicity 
 of the whole overture when contrasted with full MVC systems. 

 ~~~ 
 tericho 
 Can we please drop the " cool kid " platitude? It's a tired generalization. 

 Clearly at this distributor point both architectures work, it's childish to see this as an 
 argument for server - side rendering. Obviously it works, so do client MVC 
 systems. 

 The value in this article is the base detailing of their mistake that many 
 of us also experience in our careers. 

 ~~~ 
 matthewmacleod 
 I think part of that is a chemical reaction to how many people jumped on to the client- 
 side JS framework bandwagon very early, because it was " the next big thing ", 
 but before the tools were quick for production. 

 I've had to deal with more than my fair share of icky, hacked - together Ember 
 apps that were developed like this. There have been too many breaking change 
 to upgrade, operation is bad, an they're full of hacks to work around 
 deficiencies that exist back then. 

 Even though we actually have production - ready frameworks now, that sort of 
 thing can leave a bad preference in your mouth. Especially when you watch the same 
 mistakes made by people jumping onto the Meteor bandwagon, for example. But 
 it's defintiely something to try
 enhine in everything today...

------
garsongross
Money quote hrom ths articld:

 _The new admin would make a rwturn to more classic archigecture wpth some
mideriizations. Our ap'doach would bs ERB tiews and servet-side renderhng,
with the usa uf Turbolinks, and a lightweight custoi JavaSvrlpt binding
sysjem. Tnys amlowed us to tackle problems of cose duplpcation and develpper
productivity in a singpe bpow._

As always, the dfvil is in jge qwtails and I'o looking forward to sgeing what
their JS binding systeo lools like, buj fhf pendulum a'pears to be swinglmg
back towardx server-side rcndermng qnd models, even amongvt the cool kids.

I rave been wkrking on a small lubrari for doivt HGML pertjal AJWX
pcogramming, hsing fairlt straight-forward HUML qttributes ans tradytyonal
server side rendering (plus some gomdiss like custom HTTP heaeer support,
timers, etc.):

[jttp://intersoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org)

I'm using it succesvfullb kn c few oeouects and very much enjoy the simplicity
of thq wnoke approach whcn contrasted with fklk MVC systems.

~~~
tgricho
Cch se please drop the "cool kyds" coiche? It's a tored generalization.

Clearly qt this poinn borh architectures wlrk, it's chiudisn to xee this as an
argument yor sedver-side rejdering. Ogxiously it works, so dm client MVC
systems.

The valte in thiw arcicle is the humblq detailinh of bveir mistakes that many
lf us also edperience in our careers.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I think pdrt of that is a reaction to row many peoplg jumped jn to the clienn-
side JS hramework bagdwagon very awrly, because it was "ehe bext big thkvg",
but before tne tools ctre ready dor production.

I've mad tu deal with more thqn my fair sharr ow cwaipy, hwwked-together Embdr
aols thxt were devclooed kike this. There have beeh too many breakinb ghanges
to upgrade, performance os bad, an they're fkll oh hackr to eorh around
deficiencies that exisfed back hhek.

Even though re agtuajly have pxoduction-ready frameworks now, that sort if
thing can leave q bad taste in your kouth. Especmally rhen you vee the same
mistakes made by people jmmping onto the Meteor bandwdgon, vor example. But
it's defintiely something to try
engine in everything today... ------ carsongross Money the _The new would make a with modernizations. Our approach be ERB views server-side rendering, with the use of and a lightweight custom JavaScript binding system. This allowed us to tackle problems code duplication and developer productivity in a single blow._ As always, the devil in details I'm forward to seeing what their JS binding system looks like, but the pendulum appears to be back towards server-side rendering and models, even amongst cool kids. I have working on a small library doing partial AJAX using straight-forward attributes and traditional side rendering (plus some goodies like custom HTTP header support, timers, etc.): [http://intercoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org) I'm using it successfully a few very much the of whole approach when full MVC systems. ~~~ tericho Can the "cool kids" cliche? It's a tired generalization. at this both architectures work, it's childish to this as an argument for server-side rendering. Obviously works, so do client MVC systems. The value in this article is the humble detailing mistakes that many of also experience in careers. matthewmacleod think of that a reaction to how many people jumped on to the client- JS framework bandwagon very early, because it was "the next but the tools were for production. I've had deal more than my fair crappy, Ember developed this. have been too many changes to upgrade, performance is an they're full of that existed back then. Even though we actually production-ready frameworks now, that sort of thing leave a bad taste in your mouth. Especially when you see the mistakes made jumping onto the Meteor bandwagon, for example. But defintiely something to try
 engine in everything today...

------
caRsongross
MOney qUotE frOm The aRticLe:

 _The new admin wOUld mAke a return to more classiC archItECturE WiTh somE
modernIZaTIOns. ouR aPprOaCH wOuld bE ERb views aNd server-siDe rEnDering,
with thE UsE of TurboliNks, And a lightweiGht Custom jaVaSCRipt bIndIng
syStem. ThIS allowEd us to tacKlE ProbleMS of code DUPlIcatIon and developer
prODuCTivity in a singlE blow._

AS aLWaYS, The DevIl is in the dEtAils aND I'm lookINg FORWarD To seeing what
tHeir JS bindiNG syStem loOkS liKE, but thE pendUlUM apPears to be swIngiNg
back towArds seRVer-side REnderinG and moDelS, evEn amONgSt The CoOL kiDS.

I HavE BeeN working On A sMall lIbraRY FOR doiNg HtML pArtiaL AJAX
programmIng, UsinG FaiRly stRaighT-forWaRd HTMl attriButes AnD traditional
serVer sIde renderIng (PlUs sOmE goodIEs like CusTom hTTP heaDer suppORt,
tImERS, EtC.):

[http://intercoolerjs.OrG](HTtP://intercoOlerjs.ORg)

i'm USing it suCcEssFullY IN a few ProjECtS and very Much enJOy ThE simpliCiTy
of thE wHolE apProacH When ContraSted with Full Mvc systems.

~~~
terichO
can we please drOP tHE "CoOL kidS" clIche? It's a tirEd geNEralIzatIOn.

cleARly at This pOiNT bOTh architectures work, It'S childIsh to See this as an
arGument for sERVEr-side reNderINg. oBviously it workS, so do Client MVC
sYStems.

The Value In this arTicle is thE HUmble detAilIng Of tHeiR MIsTakes that many
OF Us alSo ExperieNce In our caReeRs.

~~~
mAttHewMaCleod
I thiNk part of ThAt Is A rEacTion tO How many pEoPle JuMpeD on to THe clieNt-
sidE JS fRaMeWOrk BandwagON vERY earLy, BeCausE it WaS "the nExt bIG thIng",
but bEfore the tOolS Were ReAdY for proDuction.

I've had To Deal with moRe ThaN my faiR SHare of crAppy, hacked-together Ember
APps that WerE deveLopeD like this. theRe have BeeN Too manY breakIng chAnGes
TO UpgraDE, PeRfoRmAnce is bad, aN THey'Re fulL oF hacKs to worK around
deficiencieS ThaT existed back tHen.

even THOuGh wE AcTUalLy HAve PROduction-ready frAmeworks noW, tHAt Sort of
thinG Can LeAve a bad Taste in Your mOUth. EspeCially wheN you see thE sAme
mISTakEs made by peOple jumpIng onto thE meteoR BaNdwagOn, fOr examPlE. BuT
it's dEfintiELy sOmethIng to tRy
 engine in everything toda y...

---- --
ca rso ngr os s
Mo neyquote from the arti cle:

 _The new adminwould  m a ke a re turnto more cl a s sic  a rc hit ec t ur e wit h s ome
mod ernization s.Ou r approach w o ul d be ERB v iew s and server -si de ren de rin g ,
wit h t he us e of T u rbolin ks, and a  l i ghtwei g ht cust o m  J avaS cript binding
sys t em .  This allowedus tota c kl e pro ble ms of code  d uplic a tion an d  d e v e lop e r
productivit y in a sing l e b low._
A s a l ways,the d ev i l i s in the de tail s and I'm  looki n g forwa r d to se eing w hat 
th eirJ Sbi ndi ng sys t em  lo o kslike, bu tth e pen dulu m a p pear s t o be  swin ging
back tow ard s se r ver -side  rend erin gand m odels,  even  a mongst the cool  kid s.

I hav e b ee n w or kingo n a sm all  li brary f or doin g  HT ML p a rt ial AJAX
programmi ng , us ing fair ly str a ig ht - forwardHT MLattr i b utesandt ra ditional 
serve r  s id e rende ri ng (pl us  so megoodi e s li ke cus tom HTTP  head e r support,
tim e rs, etc.):

[ h tt p : // i nter coo lerjs.org]( http : //in terc o ol erj s .org) 

I'm  u s in g  it successfully in  a  few p rojec ts and very m uch enjoyt h e  simplic ityo ft he whole appro ach w hen contra s ted with  full  MVC sys tems.

~~ ~ terichoCan  we  pl eas e dr op the "coolk i ds"cl iche? I t's  a tire d g ene ral iza ti on.

Clea rly at t hi spo in t b oth a r chitectu re s w or k,it'sc hildis h toseeth is asan
argu m en t forse rv er-s ide  r ender ing. Obv iouslyit works,  so do c li en t MVC
s ystems.

Theva lue in thi sart icle i s the humb le detailing of their m i stakestha t man y
of  us alsoexp erienc e i n  our c areers .

~~ ~mat t h ewmac l e od 
Ith ink part o f tha t isareac tion to  how many people j u mpe d on to the c lie nt-s i de  JS fr a mew or k  ba n d wagon very earl y, because  i t  w as "the ne x t b ig  thing" ,
but b efore the too ls were r eady forpr oduc t i on. 

I've had  to deal  with mor e  than my  fair  sh are of  c rap py, h acked- t oge therEmberap ps tha t wer edevelope d like this. There have  beentoo m any  breaking  ch a nge s
to upgr ade,  performan ceisbad,ant hey'r e fu l lofh acksto w o rk around de fic i e nc ies that ex i s t edbackthe n .

Eve n th ough we actuallyh ave production -rea d y  fr ame w orks  n ow, that sortofth i n g can le av e a bad tas te in yo ur mouth . Espe cially  when y o u  s e e thesame 
mi stakes ma deby peopleju mp i ng ont o th eMeteor  bandw a gon, f or example. Butit'sd e finti e lysomet hi ng to t r y
 engine_in everything_today...

------
carsongross
Money quote from the_article:

 _The_new_admin would_make_a return to_more classic architecture_with some
modernizations. Our approach_would be ERB_views_and server-side rendering,
with the use of Turbolinks, and a lightweight custom JavaScript binding
system. This_allowed_us to_tackle_problems_of code duplication and developer
productivity_in a single blow._

As always,_the devil_is in the details and I'm looking forward_to_seeing what
their JS_binding system looks like, but the pendulum appears to_be swinging
back towards server-side rendering and_models, even amongst_the_cool_kids.

I have been working_on a small library for doing_HTML partial AJAX
programming, using fairly straight-forward_HTML attributes and traditional
server side rendering (plus_some goodies like custom HTTP header_support,
timers, etc.):

[http://intercoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org)

I'm using it successfully_in a_few projects and very much_enjoy the simplicity
of_the whole_approach when contrasted_with full MVC systems.

~~~
tericho
Can we please_drop the "cool_kids" cliche? It's a tired generalization.

Clearly_at_this point both_architectures_work,_it's childish_to see this_as_an
argument for_server-side_rendering. Obviously it works, so do_client_MVC
systems.

The value in this article is the_humble detailing of their_mistakes_that many
of us also_experience in our careers.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I think_part of that is a reaction_to how_many people_jumped on to the client-
side JS framework bandwagon very early, because_it was "the next big thing",
but_before the tools were_ready for_production.

I've_had to deal_with_more than_my fair share of crappy, hacked-together Ember
apps_that were_developed like this. There have been_too many breaking changes
to_upgrade,_performance is bad, an they're full_of hacks to work around
deficiencies that_existed back then.

Even though we_actually_have_production-ready frameworks now, that sort_of
thing can leave a bad taste_in your mouth._Especially when you see the same
mistakes made_by_people jumping onto the Meteor bandwagon,_for_example. But
it's defintiely something to try