On 04/06/2023 05:17, Bret Busby wrote:
On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote:

I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.

That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response indicated, criticised Firefox regarding the misuse of resources - I explicitly referred to malignant web application developers (for those that do not understand the term, a web application is the application, on the web application hosting server, that the user accesses, using a web browser, not the web browser itself) that steal users' resources using client-side processing (by using malware such as javascript using client side processing), rather than properly and ethically using server-side processing, such as .jsp or Perl .cgi applications.

The problem is that some web developers (and, especially, their employers) offload the processing that should be done on the business web application hosting server, to the victim users' personal computers. It is a malignant exploitation, like the "gig economy".

With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of a web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than necessary?

[0] There are frames (now deprecated) and iframes, but they only get you so far. And each (i)frame must be a complete html page.

And even with regards to CPU usage your model might not be so great. Instead of re-rendering just the part of the page that needs to be changed (say, the message pane in a webmail application), with no client-side scripting the whole interface must be re-rendered, which can be resource intensive. So while I'd agree that with client-side scripting resource usage in the client is higher, it might not be as higher as you think.


Reply via email to