3 ms·

SPA's ruined everything. All the beauty has to be handled manually.

by thinkloop 10y ago

ng12 10y ago
SPA's didn't ruin everything, users ruined everything. Site responsiveness is demonstrably important for almost all user metrics -- conversions, sales, customer experience [1]. Even if a page load is blindingly fast a refresh is still perceived as "slow" from a user perspective. And yet they still expect URLs to maintain some sort of relative functionality. HATEOAS is a great idea for a simple site but not when it's affecting my bottom line. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-do-page-load-times-affect-e-commerce-conversion-rates https://www.quora.com/How-do-page-load-times-affect-e-commer...
- carsongross 10y ago
  This is the fundamental conflation: SPA != a responsive web app. There were and are other options that don't toss the advantages of the the web architecture and return us to the client-server programing paradigm of the 80s & 90s.
  - ng12 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand this, is your argument that there are responsive web apps that are not SPAs? I would agree that they exist but are not solving the same problems. Also, what's wrong with the client-side paradigm other than that it's old? The only thing I'm really missing out on is SEO which doesn't matter in a lot of domains.
    - carsongross 10y ago
      Yes, there are apps that are very responsive that are not SPAs. They are solving many of the problems traditional web applications have. DHH has written extensively on techniques for building them, and I have written a library for building them as well. There are many problems with the client-side paradigm: security, API churn, we lose Rest/HATEOAS, complexity, etc. That's not to say that the client side paradigm is always the wrong choice, it has its strengths as well, but it is rather to say that making it the default choice, without considering the problem at hand, is foolish.

3 ms·

SPA's ruined everything. All the beauty has to be handled manually.

by thinkloop 10y ago

SPA's ruined everything. All the beauty has to be handled manually.

ng12 10y ago
SPA's didn't ruin everything, users ruined everything. Site responsiveness is demonstrably important for almost all user metrics -- conversions, sales, customer experience [1]. Even if a page load is blindingly fast a refresh is still perceived as "slow" from a user perspective. And yet they still expect URLs to maintain some sort of relative functionality. HATEOAS is a great idea for a simple site but not when it's affecting my bottom line. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-do-page-load-times-affect-e-commerce-conversion-rates https://www.quora.com/How-do-page-load-times-affect-e-commer...
- carsongross 10y ago
  This is the fundamental conflation: SPA != a responsive web app. There were and are other options that don't toss the advantages of the the web architecture and return us to the client-server programing paradigm of the 80s & 90s.
  - ng12 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand this, is your argument that there are responsive web apps that are not SPAs? I would agree that they exist but are not solving the same problems. Also, what's wrong with the client-side paradigm other than that it's old? The only thing I'm really missing out on is SEO which doesn't matter in a lot of domains.
    - carsongross 10y ago
      Yes, there are apps that are very responsive that are not SPAs. They are solving many of the problems traditional web applications have. DHH has written extensively on techniques for building them, and I have written a library for building them as well. There are many problems with the client-side paradigm: security, API churn, we lose Rest/HATEOAS, complexity, etc. That's not to say that the client side paradigm is always the wrong choice, it has its strengths as well, but it is rather to say that making it the default choice, without considering the problem at hand, is foolish.