Related
I've done some web-based projects, and most of the difficulties I've met with (questions, confusions) could be figured out with help. But I still have an important question, even after asking some experienced developers: When functionality can be implemented with both server-side code and client-side scripting (JavaScript), which one should be preferred?
A simple example:
To render a dynamic html page, I can format the page in server-side code (PHP, python) and use Ajax to fetch the formatted page and render it directly (more logic on server-side, less on client-side).
I can also use Ajax to fetch the data (not formatted, JSON) and use client-side scripting to format the page and render it with more processing (the server gets the data from a DB or other source, and returns it to the client with JSON or XML. More logic on client-side and less on server).
So how can I decide which one is better? Which one offers better performance? Why? Which one is more user-friendly?
With browsers' JS engines evolving, JS can be interpreted in less time, so should I prefer client-side scripting?
On the other hand, with hardware evolving, server performance is growing and the cost of sever-side logic will decrease, so should I prefer server-side scripting?
EDIT:
With the answers, I want to give a brief summary.
Pros of client-side logic:
Better user experience (faster).
Less network bandwidth (lower cost).
Increased scalability (reduced server load).
Pros of server-side logic:
Security issues.
Better availability and accessibility (mobile devices and old browsers).
Better SEO.
Easily expandable (can add more servers, but can't make the browser faster).
It seems that we need to balance these two approaches when facing a specific scenario. But how? What's the best practice?
I will use client-side logic except in the following conditions:
Security critical.
Special groups (JavaScript disabled, mobile devices, and others).
In many cases, I'm afraid the best answer is both.
As Ricebowl stated, never trust the client. However, I feel that it's almost always a problem if you do trust the client. If your application is worth writing, it's worth properly securing. If anyone can break it by writing their own client and passing data you don't expect, that's a bad thing. For that reason, you need to validate on the server.
Unfortunately if you validate everything on the server, that often leaves the user with a poor user experience. They may fill out a form only to find that a number of things they entered are incorrect. This may have worked for "Internet 1.0", but people's expectations are higher on today's Internet.
This potentially leaves you writing quite a bit of redundant code, and maintaining it in two or more places (some of the definitions such as maximum lengths also need to be maintained in the data tier). For reasonably large applications, I tend to solve this issue using code generation. Personally I use a UML modeling tool (Sparx System's Enterprise Architect) to model the "input rules" of the system, then make use of partial classes (I'm usually working in .NET) to code generate the validation logic. You can achieve a similar thing by coding your rules in a format such as XML and deriving a number of checks from that XML file (input length, input mask, etc.) on both the client and server tier.
Probably not what you wanted to hear, but if you want to do it right, you need to enforce rules on both tiers.
I tend to prefer server-side logic. My reasons are fairly simple:
I don't trust the client; this may or not be a true problem, but it's habitual
Server-side reduces the volume per transaction (though it does increase the number of transactions)
Server-side means that I can be fairly sure about what logic is taking place (I don't have to worry about the Javascript engine available to the client's browser)
There are probably more -and better- reasons, but these are the ones at the top of my mind right now. If I think of more I'll add them, or up-vote those that come up with them before I do.
Edited, valya comments that using client-side logic (using Ajax/JSON) allows for the (easier) creation of an API. This may well be true, but I can only half-agree (which is why I've not up-voted that answer yet).
My notion of server-side logic is to that which retrieves the data, and organises it; if I've got this right the logic is the 'controller' (C in MVC). And this is then passed to the 'view.' I tend to use the controller to get the data, and then the 'view' deals with presenting it to the user/client. So I don't see that client/server distinctions are necessarily relevant to the argument of creating an API, basically: horses for courses. :)
...also, as a hobbyist, I recognise that I may have a slightly twisted usage of MVC, so I'm willing to stand corrected on that point. But I still keep the presentation separate from the logic. And that separation is the plus point so far as APIs go.
I generally implement as much as reasonable client-side. The only exceptions that would make me go server-side would be to resolve the following:
Trust issues
Anyone is capable of debugging JavaScript and reading password's, etc. No-brainer here.
Performance issues
JavaScript engines are evolving fast so this is becoming less of an issue, but we're still in an IE-dominated world, so things will slow down when you deal with large sets of data.
Language issues
JavaScript is weakly-typed language and it makes a lot of assumptions of your code. This can cause you to employ spooky workarounds in order to get things working the way they should on certain browsers. I avoid this type of thing like the plague.
From your question, it sounds like you're simply trying to load values into a form. Barring any of the issues above, you have 3 options:
Pure client-side
The disadvantage is that your users' loading time would double (one load for the blank form, another load for the data). However, subsequent updates to the form would not require a refresh of the page. Users will like this if there will be a lot of data fetching from the server loading into the same form.
Pure server-side
The advantage is that your page would load with the data. However, subsequent updates to the data would require refreshes to all/significant portions of the page.
Server-client hybrid
You would have the best of both worlds, however you would need to create two data extraction points, causing your code to bloat slightly.
There are trade-offs with each option so you will have to weigh them and decide which one offers you the most benefit.
One consideration I have not heard mentioned was network bandwidth. To give a specific example, an app I was involved with was all done server-side and resulted in 200Mb web page being sent to the client (it was impossible to do less without major major re-design of a bunch of apps); resulting in 2-5 minute page load time.
When we re-implemented this by sending the JSON-encoded data from the server and have local JS generate the page, the main benefit was that the data sent shrunk to 20Mb, resulting in:
HTTP response size: 200Mb+ => 20Mb+ (with corresponding bandwidth savings!)
Time to load the page: 2-5mins => 20 secs (10-15 of which are taken up by DB query that was optimized to hell an further).
IE process size: 200MB+ => 80MB+
Mind you, the last 2 points were mainly due to the fact that server side had to use crappy tables-within-tables tree implementation, whereas going to client side allowed us to redesign the view layer to use much more lightweight page. But my main point was network bandwidth savings.
I'd like to give my two cents on this subject.
I'm generally in favor of the server-side approach, and here is why.
More SEO friendly. Google cannot execute Javascript, therefor all that content will be invisible to search engines
Performance is more controllable. User experience is always variable with SOA due to the fact that you're relying almost entirely on the users browser and machine to render things. Even though your server might be performing well, a user with a slow machine will think your site is the culprit.
Arguably, the server-side approach is more easily maintained and readable.
I've written several systems using both approaches, and in my experience, server-side is the way. However, that's not to say I don't use AJAX. All of the modern systems I've built incorporate both components.
Hope this helps.
I built a RESTful web application where all CRUD functionalities are available in the absence of JavaScript, in other words, all AJAX effects are strictly progressive enhancements.
I believe with enough dedication, most web applications can be designed this way, thus eroding many of the server logic vs client logic "differences", such as security, expandability, raised in your question because in both cases, the request is routed to the same controller, of which the business logic is all the same until the last mile, where JSON/XML, instead of the full page HTML, is returned for those XHR.
Only in few cases where the AJAXified application is so vastly more advanced than its static counterpart, GMail being the best example coming to my mind, then one needs to create two versions and separate them completely (Kudos to Google!).
I know this post is old, but I wanted to comment.
In my experience, the best approach is using a combination of client-side and server-side. Yes, Angular JS and similar frameworks are popular now and they've made it easier to develop web applications that are light weight, have improved performance, and work on most web servers. BUT, the major requirement in enterprise applications is displaying report data which can encompass 500+ records on one page. With pages that return large lists of data, Users often want functionality that will make this huge list easy to filter, search, and perform other interactive features. Because IE 11 and earlier IE browsers are are the "browser of choice"at most companies, you have to be aware that these browsers still have compatibility issues using modern JavaScript, HTML5, and CSS3. Often, the requirement is to make a site or application compatible on all browsers. This requires adding shivs or using prototypes which, with the code included to create a client-side application, adds to page load on the browser.
All of this will reduce performance and can cause the dreaded IE error "A script on this page is causing Internet Explorer to run slowly" forcing the User to choose if they want to continue running the script or not...creating bad User experiences.
Determine the complexity of the application and what the user wants now and could want in the future based on their preferences in their existing applications. If this is a simple site or app with little-to-medium data, use JavaScript Framework. But, if they want to incorporate accessibility; SEO; or need to display large amounts of data, use server-side code to render data and client-side code sparingly. In both cases, use a tool like Fiddler or Chrome Developer tools to check page load and response times and use best practices to optimize code.
Checkout MVC apps developed with ASP.NET Core.
At this stage the client side technology is leading the way, with the advent of many client side libraries like Backbone, Knockout, Spine and then with addition of client side templates like JSrender , mustache etc, client side development has become much easy.
so, If my requirement is to go for interactive app, I will surely go for client side.
In case you have more static html content then yes go for server side.
I did some experiments using both, I must say Server side is comparatively easier to implement then client side.
As far as performance is concerned. Read this you will understand server side performance scores.
http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/05/improving-performance-on-twittercom.html
I think the second variant is better. For example, If you implement something like 'skins' later, you will thank yourself for not formatting html on server :)
It also keeps a difference between view and controller. Ajax data is often produced by controller, so let it just return data, not html.
If you're going to create an API later, you'll need to make a very few changes in your code
Also, 'Naked' data is more cachable than HTML, i think. For example, if you add some style to links, you'll need to reformat all html.. or add one line to your js. And it isn't as big as html (in bytes).
But If many heavy scripts are needed to format data, It isn't to cool ask users' browsers to format it.
As long as you don't need to send a lot of data to the client to allow it to do the work, client side will give you a more scalable system, as you are distrubuting the load to the clients rather than hammering your server to do everything.
On the flip side, if you need to process a lot of data to produce a tiny amount of html to send to the client, or if optimisations can be made to use the server's work to support many clients at once (e.g. process the data once and send the resulting html to all the clients), then it may be more efficient use of resources to do the work on ther server.
If you do it in Ajax :
You'll have to consider accessibility issues (search about web accessibility in google) for disabled people, but also for old browsers, those who doesn't have JavaScript, bots (like google bot), etc.
You'll have to flirt with "progressive enhancement" wich is not simple to do if you never worked a lot with JavaScript. In short, you'll have to make your app work with old browsers and those that doesn't have JavaScript (some mobile for example) or if it's disable.
But if time and money is not an issue, I'd go with progressive enhancement.
But also consider the "Back button". I hate it when I'm browsing a 100% AJAX website that renders your back button useless.
Good luck!
2018 answer, with the existence of Node.js
Since Node.js allows you to deploy Javascript logic on the server, you can now re-use the validation on both server and client side.
Make sure you setup or restructure the data so that you can re-use the validation without changing any code.
I was wondering if it is worth learning javascript first? Does AJAX require Javascript in anyway or is it just similarities in the markup language?
You should absolutely learn javascript. And because AJAX is achieved with javascript, by learning javascript you will also learn AJAX. AJAX is not a different language. It's a pattern that you could use to develop asynchronous web applications using javascript.
Also note that javascript is not a markup language.
First, learn the basics of JavaScript. It's a programming language, not a markup language. You don't need to become an expert immediately, but learn the basics — what it is, the basic structures (functions, control flow statements, variables, objects, etc.), that sort of thing.
Ajax is a technique for retrieving data in a web page without refreshing the full content of the page (or indeed, any of it if you don't want to). You perform Ajax operations (sending a request, interpreting the response) using JavaScript and some other things, such as the XMLHttpRequest object. Ajax isn't a part of JavaScript. They're just used together in the web environment.
(Side note: Although Ajax stands for "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML", the XML part of that is optional; you can do "Ajax" without using XML and in fact, many if not most people do. Ajax lets you send and retrieve all kinds of data, including XML but also including HTML, JSON, plain text, and lots of other stuff.)
Some references that may be useful:
JavaScript:
The Mozilla JavaScript pages
JavaScript: The Definitive Guide by David Flanagan (yes, an old-fashioned paper book)
Crockford's articles on JavaScript (a bit advanced, wait 'till you're ready). Crockford is smart and knowledgeable, but not everyone agrees with all of his conclusions. (I don't.) But it's good to read and understand his points, and make your own decisions. He's mostly right, most of the time.
My own anemic little blog (start with the oldest entries and work forward)
The ECMAScript specification (PDF | handy HTML version)
The DOM
DOM2 Core
DOM2 HTML
DOM3 Core
HTML5 Web Application APIs
(Speaking of which) The HTML5 specification. Parts of it are just codifying what web browsers actually do right now; other parts of it specify new stuff. Mostly you can tell which is which by checking whether the thing in question is part of HTML4. If it is, then likely the HTML5 spec tells you what browsers mostly do today. If it isn't, then it's new and browser support may be perfect, or may be non-existant. :-)
The API docs for the library you choose. There are several good ones: jQuery, Prototype, YUI, Closure, or any of several others. (jQuery is the most widely-used at present.)
Late answer, but here's an analogy if it helps...
Learning JavaScript is like learning to ride a motorcycle.
Learning AJAX is like learning a technique or trick you can do on that motorcycle, like pop a wheelie (though AJAX is more practical than that).
Learning jQuery is like getting some gear to (perhaps) make your motorcycle ride safer or more enjoyable, like a helmet and leather chaps and jacket, or a more comfortable seat and better shocks, or maybe some saddlebags.
So the base of everything is JavaScript. AJAX is just a term to describe something you do in JavaScript, and jQuery is a code library that you may enjoy using when developing in JavaScript, but isn't at all required.
To be more specific, AJAX is a technology that uses javascript for 'part of the work' (it stands for Asyncronous JavaScript and XML), and handling it properly requires knowing at least something about javascript. Also, using a javascript library such as jQuery or Prototype make it much easier to work with AJAX.
JavaScript is a language, AJAX is a technology performed using JavaScript (and usually a web server).
AJAX is 98% Javascript and 2% other. Even the JSON(Javascript Object Notation) you would use for the response data type format, if you choose to, is Javascript. I think this answers your question.
Having been primarily a server-side programmer(ASP.NET WebForms) I'm trying to get my mind wrapped around AJAX outside of the "catch-all" approach of using UpdatePanels in the Microsoft AJAX controls. My question has a couple parts:
Is JavaScript the only option for client-side scripting that will support server-side communication? If not what are the alternatives.
What is the "general" architecture of an AJAX application? Is it simply JavaScript(client-side script) interacting with server-side resources(data/remote functionality exposed through web services)?
I know these may seem like simple questions but given JavaScript's "nuances" AJAX still seems a bit like "black magic" to me. Thanks!
Here is the short and sweet version.
No, but it is really the only language that is supported across a wide range of browsers. If you only care about IE you could use VBScript, but it is not any extra effort to use JS and get wider support so pretty much everyone uses JS.
AJAX isn't as complicated as it seems. In a nutshell it is client side code that runs in the browser to modify the current page's layout or content based on data it queries from the web server using the XMLHttpRequest object.
The most complicated part is dealing with the different syntax/behaviors of the various browsers, which is why most people use a framework that abstracts most of that away.
Here is a simple "Hello World" script using AJAX:
<script type="text/javascript">
var http = createRequestObject();
function createRequestObject() {
var objAjax;
var browser = navigator.appName;
if(browser == "Microsoft Internet Explorer"){
objAjax = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}else{
objAjax = new XMLHttpRequest();
}
return objAjax;
}
function getNewContent(){
http.open('get','newcontent.txt');
http.onreadystatechange = updateNewContent;
http.send(null);
return false;
}
function updateNewContent(){
if(http.readyState == 4){
document.getElementById('mySentence').innerHTML = http.responseText;
}
}
</script>
Source: http://www.openhosting.co.uk/articles/webdev/5899/
The final complication is parsing what you get back from the server into an appropriate form that the code can deal with. The most common optons are:
JSON: Easily parses into objects using JavaScript's EVAL function.
Nice for pulling back information
about a single entity with multiple
attributes.
XML: Somewhat easily parses using the DOM methods built into JS, but
more complex than JSON. If you need a
lot more control or want to do XSLT
transforms, this is a decent option. In theory it could be considered a little safer because it doesn't require passing arbitrary strings into EVAL which could execute malicious code on the client, but this is debatable.
Unstructured text: If you just want a single value back, the other
two methods can be a bit of overkill.
AJAX is generally the interchange, the runner if you like, of data between client-side and server-side, and of course visa-versa.
The advance of AJAX has come hand in hand with the rise of Open Source, the "Social" Web and a rapidly expanding network of developers both amateur and professional. This in turn has sparked the development of many JavaScript Frameworks (jQuery, Prototype, Mootools, Glow etc) which essentially remove, or at least mask very well, those "nuances" you mentioned.
AJAX isn't simply a client-side script interacting with a server-side script, though. XHTML and CSS for presentation, the Document Object Model for dynamic display of and interaction with data, XML and XSLT (and more recently, JSON) for the interchange, and manipulation and display, of data, respectively, the XMLHttpRequest object for asynchronous communication and then finally JavaScript to bring these technologies together (wikipedia).
AJAX/JavaScript isn't the only client side solution, other established solutions such as Java and Flash for example still have their place. But JavaScript is, for the best part, widely support by all modern browsers, and indeed the JavaScript Engines of these browsers is rapidly picking up speed, opening up many more possibilities for seamless interaction between the front-end and the back-end.
Hope I didn't waffle too much, you asked ;)
Is JavaScript the only option for
client-side scripting that will
support server-side communication? If
not what are the alternatives.
Yes, Javascript is what you will use. While there may be other options availabe such as VBScript, you will want to use Javascript because it is the most widely adopted.
What is the "general" architecture of
an AJAX application? Is it simply
JavaScript(client-side script)
interacting with server-side
resources(data/remote functionality
exposed through web services)?
That's exactly correct. Web services or generic handlers serve up the necessary data in either JSON or XML format, both of which can easily be processed with Javascript.
In my opinion, the thing about AJAX that slips up most ASP.NET web form developers is the asynchronous aspect.
All the current answers are good but they neglect one point. AJAX is not a script or language or technology as such, you cannot write something 'in' AJAX. AJAX is just a bundling term.
This is from Wikipedia:
Like DHTML and LAMP, AJAX is not a technology in itself, but a group of technologies. AJAX uses a combination of:
HTML and CSS for marking up and styling information.
The DOM accessed with JavaScript to dynamically display and interact with the information presented.
A method for exchanging data asynchronously between browser and server, thereby avoiding page reloads. The XMLHttpRequest (XHR) object is usually used, but sometimes an IFrame object or a dynamically added tag is used instead.
A format for the data sent to the browser. Common formats include XML, pre-formatted HTML, plain text, and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). This data could be created dynamically by some form of server-side scripting.
JavaScript alternative VbScript ( if I have to name one and beware it is MS technology and works only with IE ), But practically speaking JavaScript is universally accepted solution for client side scripting.
For Ajax Please refer below SO discussions :
ajax-books-and-tutorial
ajax-tutorial
ajax-and-asp-net-tutorials
I am trying to get into web development, specially interested building the front-end, UI part of websites while learning JavaScript maybe with AJAX technology. (I have a UI, HCI background.)
However, I have absolutely no previous knowledge about server-end web development either. To my understanding, frameworks like Django seem to pretty good at this (correct me if I am misunderstanding).
So the question is: how much Django, or Rails do I need to know, if my interest is primarily the user interface part of web development. Can I just let somebody else do the back-end stuff?
Pardon me for my imprecise choice of terminologies.
You need to know a bit about the server side. Here's what you need to know.
If you have a heavy JavaScript website, you're likely going to want to pass information from the server to clients with JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). This is just a way to format data into strings that JavaScript knows how to convert to objects.
So, each of your server-side functions that send data to the client will return JSON. If you have someone writing the server-side for you, that's all you should have to know. You're JS functions will receive JSON, and then you deal with it.
If you have to write the server-side yourself, then that involves 1) getting data from database 2) formatting the data 3) converting to JSON.
I have open-sourced a commenting widget that accepts JSON messages, and gives examples of how you would set up the Django server code. Maybe it will help you: http://www.trailbehind.com/comment_widget/
You can make a career of front-end user interface development without know a ton about server code. You would do well though to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what happens on the server when you send it a request, where your data comes from, and what the life-cycle of a web page is. This assumes that you have the support of back-end developers. As you mentioned Ajax in your question that implies that you want your web sites to actually do something, which will require things to happen on the back-end (such as storage, manipulation of data, logging in a user, etc.).
As with all things, the more you know, the easier it will be to get what you want from the dedicated professionals. I would suggest that you learn about programming in general, not try an learn a language and framework. In particular, try to understand datatypes, server settings (like timeouts, post versus get, etc.), security and database interactions as they exist beyond JavaScript/ECMAScript. That way when a developer is explaining why they cannot do something you have requested or are offering alternatives, you are speaking the same language.
Yes and no. Typically what people think of AJAX, such as posting a comment on YouTube and seeing the comment appear instantly with a thank you message, for example, requires a server side language handling the requests, looking up data and returning results as html snippets, JSON data, or XML.
However, an AJAX call can be made to static resources as well. You could have an XML file or html snippet stored statically on your web server and have it loaded. The uses for this sort of static loading are generally fewer because if you already have the static html or data in file next to your regular page, why not just put that data directly into the page?
It helps to set up a local server and write a few lines of code to service your AJAX calls. You can do a lot of JavaScript learning with just a little back-end learning.
If you're new in web development you'd rather wait with Ajax and server-side languages until you've learnt the basics with HTML, CSS and JavaScript, especially if you want to mostly work with the user interface and not the funcionality.
As you said you can let somebody else do the back-end and focus on front-end (JavaScript, HTML, CSS).
You would need to communicate with the back-end developer when storing or processing data from the server.
As mentioned before back-end development knowledge would be useful but if you have someone doing it, it's not essential for beginning.
Is the use of server side javascript prevalent? Why would one use it as opposed the any other server side scripting? Is there a specific use case(s) that makes it better than other server side languages?
Also, confused on how to get started experimenting with it, I'm on freeBSD, what would I need installed in order to run server side javascript?
It goes like this:
Servers are expensive, but users will give you processing time in their browsers for free. Therefore, server-side code is relatively expensive compared to client-side code on any site big enough to need to run more than one server. However, there are some things you can't leave to the client, like data validation and retrieval. You'd like to do them on the client, because it means faster response times for the users and less server infrastructure for yourself, but security and accessibility concerns mean server-side code is required.
What typically happens is you do both. You write server-side logic because you have to, but you also write the same logic in javascript in hopes of providing faster responses to the user and saving your servers a little extra work in some situations. This is especially effective for validation code; a failed validation check in a browser can save an entire http request/response pair on the server.
Since we're all (mostly) programmers here we should immediately spot the new problem. There's not only the extra work involved in developing two sets of the same logic, but also the work involved in maintaining it, the inevitable bugs resulting from platforms don't match up well, and the bugs introduced as the implementations drift apart over time.
Enter server-side javascript. The idea is you can write code once, so the same code runs on both server and client. This would appear to solve most of the issue: you get the full set of both server and client logic done all at once, there's no drifting, and no double maintenance. It's also nice when your developers only need to know one language for both server and client work.
Unfortunately, in the real world it doesn't work out so well. The problem is four-fold:
The server view of a page is still very different from the client view of a page. The server needs to be able to do things like talk directly to a database that just shouldn't be done from the browser. The browser needs to do things like manipulate a DOM that doesn't match up with the server.
You don't control the javascript engine of the client, meaning there will still be important language differences between your server code and your client code.
The database is normally a bigger bottleneck than the web server, so savings and performance benefit ends up less than expected.
While just about everyone knows a little javascript, not many developers really know and understand javascript well.
These aren't completely unassailable technical problems: you constrain the server-supported language to a sub-set of javascript that's well supported across most browsers, provide an IDE that knows this subset and the server-side extensions, make some rules about page structure to minimize DOM issues, and provide some boiler-plate javascript for inclusion on the client to make the platform a little nicer to use. The result is something like Aptana Studio/Jaxer, or more recently Node.js, which can be pretty nice.
But not perfect. In my opinion, there are just too many pitfalls and little compatibility issues to make this really shine. Ultimately, additional servers are still cheap compared to developer time, and most programmers are able to be much more productive using something other than javascript.
What I'd really like to see is partial server-side javascript. When a page is requested or a form submitted the server platform does request validation in javascript, perhaps as a plugin to the web server that's completely independent from the rest of it, but the response is built using the platform of your choice.
I think a really cool use of server-side Javascript that isn't used nearly often enough is for data validation. With it, you can write one javascript file to validate a form, check it on the client side, then check it again on the server side because we shouldn't trust anything on the client side. It lets you keep your validation rules DRY. Quite handy.
Also see:
Will server-side Javascript take off? Which implementation is most stable?
When and how do you use server side JavaScript?
Javascript is just a language. Because it is just a language, you can use it anywhere you want... in your browser, on the server, embedded in other applications, stand-alone applications, etc.
That being said, I don't know that there is a lot of new development happening with "Server-Side Javascript"
Javascript is a perfectly good language with a self / scheme prototype style base and a C style syntax. There are some problems, see Javascript the Good Parts, but in general it's a first rate language. The problem is that most javascript programmers are terrible programmers because it's very accessible to get started.
One team at google built out Rhino on Rails, which is an MVC framework like Ruby on Rails which is written in javascript and runs on Rhino a javascript interpreter for the Java VM. In this case they had a requirement to use the Java VM, but wanted to get a language which was fast (javascript is fast), supported duck typing, and was flexible.
Another example is something like CouchDB, a document oriented database which uses json as it's transport format and javascript as it's query & index language. They wanted the database to be as web native as possible.
Javascript is good at string and dom (xml) manipulation, being sandboxed, networking, extending itself, etc... Those kind of features are the thing you often do when developing web applications.
All that said, i don't actually develop server side javascript. It's not a bad idea, but definitely less common.
We use javascript on the client because it is there, not because from a list of languages it was our choice. I wouldn't choose it for any chore on the server.
You can run any language you like on the server, in fact, as many as you like.
javascript is reliable and easy to use, but it is just too labor intensive for common tasks on the server.
I have used both Javascript (NodeJS) and compiled languages (such as Java or C#.NET). There are huge discussions on the internet about which is preferable. This question is very old (2009). Since then the Javascript world has changed considerably, whereas honestly the Java world has not changed much (relatively).
There have been huge advancements in the Javascript world with Typescript, amazing frameworks (such as Next.JS), reactive programming, functional programming, GraphQL, SSR etc.
When I look at compiled code, especially Java code it all still seems to be the same old tools - Spring (maybe SpringBoot) and Jackson. .NET has advanced server side, but not to the extent of the JS world.
Sure my list there can be used with several languages, but I believe Javascript has improved the software engineering world considerably.
Server side development with Javascript, Typescript and NodeJs is engaging, fun and productive. Use it and enjoy it. Like millions are today.