> But... that's one of the pro's of not having to do the rending cycle on the server. Also caching of framework libraries off CDN's and such.
This doesn't save battery life on a device. If someone downloads a few meg of JS their browser has to parse and execute that JS locally. This use of processing uses power. If that same person had half as much JS to parse and execute it would use less power.
A CDN does not save from this happening.
When power use happens on a server it's more on the server but less on devices with batteries. Batteries aren't used up as quickly (both between recharges and in their overall life).
A server side setup can cache and even use a CDN to only need to render parts that change.
My points are that it's not all cut and dry along with considering batteries.
Oh, and older systems (like 5 year old ones)... surfing the web on an older system can be a pain now because of JS proliferation.
> Oh, and older systems (like 5 year old ones)... surfing the web on an older system can be a pain now because of JS proliferation.
This matters because of the poor, the elderly (on a fixed income), and those who aren't in first world countries don't have easy access to money to keep getting newer computers.
Then there is the environmental impact of tossing all those old computers.
So, there is both a people and environment impact.
I think there's some kind of weird mentality among web devs that client-size computations are free, but server-side ones cost resources because you do more of them the more users you have.
That’s not so weird. It’s like IKEA shipping you disassembled furniture: they don’t have to pay for assembly (nor for shipping as much air). The client bears the cost of assembly, so if you don’t pay the client’s costs, it’s free.
The two things that use the most battery in a phone are the radio and the screen.
If you can do most of the work client side, the phone can turn off the radio and save battery. The amount of battery savings of course depends greatly on what the application is actually doing.
This doesn't save battery life on a device. If someone downloads a few meg of JS their browser has to parse and execute that JS locally. This use of processing uses power. If that same person had half as much JS to parse and execute it would use less power.
A CDN does not save from this happening.
When power use happens on a server it's more on the server but less on devices with batteries. Batteries aren't used up as quickly (both between recharges and in their overall life).
A server side setup can cache and even use a CDN to only need to render parts that change.
My points are that it's not all cut and dry along with considering batteries.
Oh, and older systems (like 5 year old ones)... surfing the web on an older system can be a pain now because of JS proliferation.