You must be talking of that page. It is one of those terms that a group of developers want to paste, only time will tell what will happen.
The meaning seems like you already know. It’s a technique in which both the server and client share code. In theory this brings advantages, and of course there are disadvantages.
They start from a dangerous assumption that Google can index all the pages rendered on the client, which is not an absolute truth and ignores the other seekers.
Besides, it seems to me that putting not only the rendering, but the scripting in the client, has problems to control the content. I can’t imagine how you can trust something so important that it’s done on the client and has an impact on the server. They must have some solution but must begin to have its disadvantages.
So it may even be useful for applications, but not for websites. No wonder the spa’s a Applications and not of is an S of websites.
The idea of the SPA is interesting and this technique takes this to the extreme leaving very little for Node.js to solve on the server side.
It bumps into the problem that current technology doesn’t work as well as SPA and many applications can’t get along with the extremism of letting the server just handle as an API provider and nothing else.
So even it seems that few people have bought the idea so far.
The obvious advantage is the purism of using only one language, a single coherent library, and not overloading the server, in theory.
In short: they are applications that use the same code both on the client and on the server. The concept has been gaining strength with Node.js.
– Kazzkiq
@Kazzkiq but this is too bad =/ and who doesn’t use Node.js? besides that for large-scale applications, I don’t know if Node.js would be a good idea, one that dev js cost is higher, another that the language itself is unstable, because of the browsers...
– Rod
Did any help you more? You need something to be improved?
– Maniero