3 ms·

In terms of fun I think there's a lot of value to the traditional server side rendered html. At least for the first MVP you can basically do away with the whol

In terms of fun I think there's a lot of value to the traditional server side rendered html. At least for the first MVP you can basically do away with the whole node stack and focus in on the backend storage, the html template and css first. Essentially the basics. It just seems so much nicer. It also adds a forcing function for minimal Javascript which is definitely a good thing. Migration from server side to a single page app once you have that MVP is pretty copy paste-able too. That html template and css is still valid in an SPA. You'll need an API but hey you already have the server side stuff there ready to go!

kitsunesoba 5y ago
This is generally my thought too… it’s not a perfect rule but the less libraries/tooling/etc you have on the front end, the better, at least initially. Server tends to be a more sane and controlled environment, especially if you’re using a “boring” tried and true setup instead of whatever is currently trendy.
rp1 5y ago
I kind of agree, but once you need any JavaScript, you basically need it to pull in the entire modern JS tool chain, so adding server side rendering doesn’t replace complexity, it adds to it. Having a system that would allow you to build server side rendered HTML that could seamlessly integrate client JavaScript seems like it would be a huge advantage. Not sure if there is anything like that though.