3 ms·
Is it not simpler because the applications themselves are simpler? I mean, when you say that client frameworks like angular and svelte have their place with com
by zdragnar 5y ago
Is it not simpler because the applications themselves are simpler? I mean, when you say that client frameworks like angular and svelte have their place with complex UX/UI interactions.
Of course SSR is simpler- request in, send / receive from a database, markup out. It isnt anything to do with SSR- your domain is simpler.
- _9omd 5y ago> your domain is simpler This echos my thinking whenever these framework/SSR/JavaScript debates come up. It's like everyone is talking past each other because there is no clarity around the complexity of what's being built.
- stepbeek 5y agoI use miro and figma as examples of products that would be extremely hard to build as a traditional SSR app.
- naasking 5y ago> your domain is simpler. So you're saying the domain is simpler while still satisfying the client's requirements? I think that's exactly the OP's point.
- zdragnar 5y agoOP said: > My conclusion is that SPAs definitely have their place - but that place is in the minority, mostly for web apps with complex UI/UX. Therefore, it follows that OP finds SSR is simpler, but only because OP only uses SSR for simple problems.
- naasking 5y agoNon-complex UI/UX != Simple problems. Also, most problems people have don't need complex UI/UX.