I get what you mean and you are right in a way, but raw performance is not the only thing to consider. Yes, server rendered sites are usually an order of magnit

I get what you mean and you are right in a way, but raw performance is not the only thing to consider. Yes, server rendered sites are usually an order of magnitude simpler to code than these JS-rendered solutions, and are often faster, but where JS rendering shines is interactivity and perceived performances: you always know what is going on! loading, sending a text, etc (provided the UX is right) Sprinkling some client-side code on top of server rendered templates is so limitating for everything but the simplest websites! It's 80% more effort for the 20% last performance/richness points. it's over, people want/expect these kinds of apps, e.g feels as good as native apps but on the web. But you're also right some people misuse that kind of technology to a ridiculous extent. Downloading a 3MB angular app just to display a crappy site without any rich interactions is really infuriating but that's just bad engineering and people who make choices based on what's popular, disregarding context.