4 ms·
I mean SPAs and near-SPAs. "Web apps". Web sites as in mostly server-rendered sites with HTML, CSS, and some JS sugar on top could sub in for an awful lot of "w
by asark 7y ago
I mean SPAs and near-SPAs. "Web apps". Web sites as in mostly server-rendered sites with HTML, CSS, and some JS sugar on top could sub in for an awful lot of "web apps" and improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost.
[EDIT] incidentally I notice you keep arguing against things I've not actually written.
- ng12 7y agoIt's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. The bits about peacocking and resume-padding are... unconvincing. > ...improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost. I don't buy it at all. As mentioned, I've done both professionally and there are reasons I keep picking React (or a hybrid ala Next) that don't involve a bigger paycheck or "peacocking".
- asark 7y agoIt's usually companies or management/product folks paying for their product to have the peacock feathers. See also: flat/material redesigns not to improve usability—in fact it may make it worse—but to avoid "looking old", not because users complained or metrics look bad but because someone with a budget guesses maybe they might. Similar with choices to make fairly simple sites into heavy SPAs with questionable performance. > It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. I appreciate it. Seriously!