3 ms·
> The SPA model is "more correct" way to do dynamic content since we're back to serving static pages The contention is that we cannot even agree on basic words
by majewsky 7y ago
> The SPA model is "more correct" way to do dynamic content since we're back to serving static pages
The contention is that we cannot even agree on basic words. An SPA is anything but "static", it's as dynamic as a website can ever be with all the untrusted JavaScript code that my browser has to execute (hence why browsers are as complex as they are today). A server-side application serving static HTML and CSS ("static" as in "no JS") is much easier to trust.
- Spivak 7y agoWhen I say static I mean that your web server distributes a fixed artifact without any server-side templating. Your usage of 'static' conflicts with the usage of 'static site generator' where fixed payloads are generated that can be uploaded to any web server. Such sites can have no JS, be full blown SPAs, or anywhere in between. Some people use "static content" for this but often sites serving static content are still enhanced by JS in some form. Just that the main page content doesn't have any interactivity.