3 ms·

There is so much entertainment in SPA vs HTML and similarly Vim vs Visual Studio, static vs. dynamic types etc. debates. But to be boring (sorry!) it all comes

There is so much entertainment in SPA vs HTML and similarly Vim vs Visual Studio, static vs. dynamic types etc. debates. But to be boring (sorry!) it all comes down to the most approriate tool for the job. At work it's a SPA because it's an application delivered via the web. Delivering via not the web wouldn't work as well, and delivering it as not an application is a non starter. My current side project is a HTML sprinkled with JS, turn off JS and you can use most of the site kind of thing. Why? Because ... well mainly SEO to be honest. But there you go ... reasons!

samcday 7y ago
Bah, to hell with your boring moderate stance! I would much rather have endless debates with others about why MY hammer is better than their hammer, and ignore the fact that maybe not everything is a nail ;)
azdacha 7y ago
Google recently updated their crawlers to understand "full Javascript websites" ; I don't like the term spa as one could build one with pure css and html and still have a single page. Now onto the js frameworks, it depends on which one is used. One could build a website watching web.dev and use a budget to make sure it's app is lightweight. There are numerous tools to make sure an app is properly made. But tbh, I like my js framework because the community is so great, I know the framework is good even tough there are arguments there and there. I guess it all depends on the tool you choose and how you build your end product. Now having a website that loads in 30s is a joke I haven't experienced in the modern web, and my js framework actually provides a powerful caching system that makes the website available even tough I could bring down my dns. To this point I presume we are just in a odd point in web evolution where we have discovered a new paradigm and rushed into it's usage without maturity. These things will change but I think it is important to know that some JS front framework are not incompatible with a lightweight web.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> But to be boring (sorry!) it all comes down to the most approriate tool for the job. It does. But, depending on how you look at it, either most web companies absolutely suck at picking right tool for the job, or the job isn't really what you'd think it is. Taking your typical plain webpage done as an SPA, you could either say (as I would) that the authors picked wrong tool for the job, introducing completely unnecessary complexity both on their end and customer end - or, you could tell that the job of that website isn't to be useful to and considerate of the visitor, but to be e.g. CV-fodder for web developers, a way for the team to show off their sophisticated infrastructure, or for the marketing to play their A/B testing shenanigans, or for the company to show off to the investors, etc. Once you account for all the "parts of the job" that are orthogonal or even opposite to delivering value to users, suddenly a proliferation of frontend complexity makes perfect sense.
pier25 7y ago
I agree completely, use the right tool for the job, it's just that the SPA pattern has been abused.

samcday 7y ago

Bah, to hell with your boring moderate stance! I would much rather have endless debates with others about why MY hammer is better than their hammer, and ignore the fact that maybe not everything is a nail ;)

azdacha 7y ago

Google recently updated their crawlers to understand "full Javascript websites" ; I don't like the term spa as one could build one with pure css and html and still have a single page. Now onto the js frameworks, it depends on which one is used. One could build a website watching web.dev and use a budget to make sure it's app is lightweight. There are numerous tools to make sure an app is properly made. But tbh, I like my js framework because the community is so great, I know the framework is good even tough there are arguments there and there. I guess it all depends on the tool you choose and how you build your end product. Now having a website that loads in 30s is a joke I haven't experienced in the modern web, and my js framework actually provides a powerful caching system that makes the website available even tough I could bring down my dns. To this point I presume we are just in a odd point in web evolution where we have discovered a new paradigm and rushed into it's usage without maturity. These things will change but I think it is important to know that some JS front framework are not incompatible with a lightweight web.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> But to be boring (sorry!) it all comes down to the most approriate tool for the job. It does. But, depending on how you look at it, either most web companies absolutely suck at picking right tool for the job, or the job isn't really what you'd think it is. Taking your typical plain webpage done as an SPA, you could either say (as I would) that the authors picked wrong tool for the job, introducing completely unnecessary complexity both on their end and customer end - or, you could tell that the job of that website isn't to be useful to and considerate of the visitor, but to be e.g. CV-fodder for web developers, a way for the team to show off their sophisticated infrastructure, or for the marketing to play their A/B testing shenanigans, or for the company to show off to the investors, etc. Once you account for all the "parts of the job" that are orthogonal or even opposite to delivering value to users, suddenly a proliferation of frontend complexity makes perfect sense.

pier25 7y ago

I agree completely, use the right tool for the job, it's just that the SPA pattern has been abused.