4 ms·

I see a lot of folks complaining, but the reasoning is completely blown out. "I hate spa's because they have a 50 mb library behind them". Honestly I'd like to

I see a lot of folks complaining, but the reasoning is completely blown out. "I hate spa's because they have a 50 mb library behind them". Honestly I'd like to see an example of that. I haven't built a static website since 2005 and I seriously don't get all the contempt for spa's or dynamic sites. Horrible user experience? Maybe for those who grew up on static designs. If you do them right, which isn't even hard, they should be a much better experience, since you're not loading all the content at once. Maybe I don't understand because there's a bunch of gripping and not a lot of, "here's why it sucks". Other than, "the web was intended to support static sites". Yeah, and computers were built strictly for scientists, so stop using yours. :)

mattmanser 9y ago
A SPA generally has to initialize and hook everything up. If you're being even more trendy and have turned your entire back end into an API, you then have to wait for the javascript to compile, wait for the intial document complete javascript call, post off for the data, wait for the data, run a render and finally display what the person wants. On your dev laptop with 16 Gb and multi-core and a local database and web server, that's fast. For all your users, it's not. And all that for what? In the context of this discussion, maybe a fancy user menu that could have been written in a couple of kb of raw javascript by someone with more than a couple of years of dev experience that would take a millisecond to compile and run compared to the 500ms-20s of having to wait for something like React or Angular or Knockout or whatever.
pdimitar 9y ago
http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm Also, learn to discuss.