Since Doom renders the image with vertical columns of pixels (floor, lower wall, portal if exists continues rendering the other sector, then upper wall then ceiling) and since browsers are very good at drawing the sprites out of larger textures... You could send vertical divs shaded with the sector light level and picking the correct textures. Instead of hundreds per column you will have like 5 divs on average per column and they will be textured shaded and scaled by the browser?
Very impressive! Worth noting that HTMX also has a WebSocket extension - https://v1.htmx.org/extensions/web-sockets/ so one could potentially also do "live views" in more performant runtimes like JVM or Node.js
My first version of Django LiveView used HTMX. WebSocket connectivity is one aspect; there is another part of logic and architecture where it falls short.
So SSR is 50ms and LiveView is 10ms, what test was being performed to achieve these timings? Rendering a sample page or rendering doom?
Also LiveView is described as "Build rich, dynamic user experiences with server-rendered HTML without writing a single line of JavaScript." and their example uses django templating to render the HTML that is returned.
So what are we really measuring here? The speed up seems to solely come from WebSockets, and maybe skipping some Django middleware. Anyone care to elaborate?
I assume Django LiveView is directly inspired by Phoenix LiveView. It's essentially diffing template expansion on the backend and sending patches to the frontend via websockets where JS then applies the patches. Clicks and other interactions are also transmitted to the backend where state for the socket is updated and the template is reevaluated, hence completing the loop.
Tangential question: is it common for frameworks to use the same name as a package from another framework? I had never heard of Django LiveView, but have used Phoenix’s Liveview and assumed that’s what it was. Not sure if I like that? I.e. does it imply some sort of endorsement or partnership? I do like that Laravel went with Livewire to distinguish it.
There are two things I'm really bad at: invalidating the cache and naming frameworks. It has that name because it's very inspired. It's an adaptation of Django.
It's only django-related third-party packages comparison (and SSR itself), would be a bit strange to compare with a different language/stack and/or framework
With focus on LiveView, I think it’s interesting to see how the runtime influences the results. Django and Phoenix have a very different concurrency model
I wish we could host Django apps with the tasks and everything on Cloudflare workers. Also it would be nice to have a DB like SQLite within Cloudflare.
you can do it on wasmer's workers, their last wasm/python approach is pretty solid (compatibility, performance). it's sad to say, but after 4 years of "beta" Python support on CF workers - it's still ugly. I dunno who was responsible for such a neglect, but even with the last changes - total fiasco
Making this more efficient would be kinda counter productive
I'd be curious to see what parameters are required for a smooth / playable demo.
Or am I missing something?
(Slow input with no interpolation?)
Also LiveView is described as "Build rich, dynamic user experiences with server-rendered HTML without writing a single line of JavaScript." and their example uses django templating to render the HTML that is returned.
So what are we really measuring here? The speed up seems to solely come from WebSockets, and maybe skipping some Django middleware. Anyone care to elaborate?
I assume the difference in usage of full stop / period or comma is accidental?
Basado
guess i could run it on a dedicated server
would be nice if we can get django and liveview working without a server
https://github.com/G4brym/django-cf has a template (among other things) to get started
Another option is the containers stuff mentioned in sibling comment but it's not so FaaS.
https://developers.cloudflare.com/containers/
https://bunny.net/cdn-lp