4 ms·

Prior to SPAs we had multi-page applications telling the user "don't use the back button or tabs, they break the website". Was that really better?

by moring 4y ago

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
False dichotomy. A poor implementation of a generally sensible approach is not justification to embrace a more complex and error-prone approach.
- moring 4y ago
  This argument can be used word-by-word in favor of SPAs and against earlier web applications, but it's a No True Scotsman either way.
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    But then you’re making the argument that a SPA is less complex than a more orthodox equivalent, and I don’t think that’s the case.
    - moring 4y ago
      It was definitely the case for most applications I have worked with because they had to perform client-side logic on the server side. Most SPAs I've seen at least have clearly separated responsibilities between the two, AND they don't act as if there wasn't a network in between.
      - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
        > AND they don't act as if there wasn't a network in between …But there is a network in between. I'm not sure why pretending there isn't can somehow make a system less complex. Furthermore, how do you write automated tests for your modals and slide-out panels? Your test suite needs to essentially run a browser. This is absolutely more complex than having an application on the server compute the document that the client expects.
        moring 4y ago
        > But there is a network in between That's exactly my argument...? Seems to be a misunderstanding. > I'm not sure why pretending there isn't can somehow make a system less complex. Yes, that is exactly why pre-SPA web programming was more complex. > Furthermore, how do you write automated tests for your modals and slide-out panels? Your test suite needs to essentially run a browser. This is absolutely more complex than having an application on the server compute the document that the client expects. How do you test that the HTML/JS generated by the server actually show a modal? At least with libraries like React you can test everything up to the actual CSS engine. And no, you don't need a browser for that.
        yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
        I don't think either of us are going to convince the other. I've built large, complex systems with both approaches, and I'm assuming you have too. > How do you test that the HTML/JS generated by the server actually show a modal? You can test for the existence of markup on page load. You can't test that some JavaScript for displaying a modal has run without running a JavaScript runtime, i.e., a [headless] browser. In most cases, just loading a page which displays the appropriate information for the user is cheaper to test and implement, and usually is a better experience for the user also. It depends of course — this would not be true of an application like Google Maps. Most web applications aren't Google Maps though.
notyourwork 4y ago
Not all websites got it wrong. They are both a problem but one does not excuse the other in regards to ignoring the way the web spec works.
- moring 4y ago
  Not all SPAs do it wrong either, that's my point. Caring about the user is orthogonal to the technology used.
  - notyourwork 4y ago
    Most SPAs get it wrong because it’s complex to make work well in a single page framework. It’s nearly impossible to get wrong with a traditional webpage.

Prior to SPAs we had multi-page applications telling the user "don't use the back button or tabs, they break the website". Was that really better?

by moring 4y ago

Prior to SPAs we had multi-page applications telling the user "don't use the back button or tabs, they break the website". Was that really better?

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

False dichotomy. A poor implementation of a generally sensible approach is not justification to embrace a more complex and error-prone approach.

moring 4y ago
This argument can be used word-by-word in favor of SPAs and against earlier web applications, but it's a No True Scotsman either way.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  But then you’re making the argument that a SPA is less complex than a more orthodox equivalent, and I don’t think that’s the case.
  - moring 4y ago
    It was definitely the case for most applications I have worked with because they had to perform client-side logic on the server side. Most SPAs I've seen at least have clearly separated responsibilities between the two, AND they don't act as if there wasn't a network in between.
    - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
      > AND they don't act as if there wasn't a network in between …But there is a network in between. I'm not sure why pretending there isn't can somehow make a system less complex. Furthermore, how do you write automated tests for your modals and slide-out panels? Your test suite needs to essentially run a browser. This is absolutely more complex than having an application on the server compute the document that the client expects.
      - moring 4y ago
        > But there is a network in between That's exactly my argument...? Seems to be a misunderstanding. > I'm not sure why pretending there isn't can somehow make a system less complex. Yes, that is exactly why pre-SPA web programming was more complex. > Furthermore, how do you write automated tests for your modals and slide-out panels? Your test suite needs to essentially run a browser. This is absolutely more complex than having an application on the server compute the document that the client expects. How do you test that the HTML/JS generated by the server actually show a modal? At least with libraries like React you can test everything up to the actual CSS engine. And no, you don't need a browser for that.
        yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
        I don't think either of us are going to convince the other. I've built large, complex systems with both approaches, and I'm assuming you have too. > How do you test that the HTML/JS generated by the server actually show a modal? You can test for the existence of markup on page load. You can't test that some JavaScript for displaying a modal has run without running a JavaScript runtime, i.e., a [headless] browser. In most cases, just loading a page which displays the appropriate information for the user is cheaper to test and implement, and usually is a better experience for the user also. It depends of course — this would not be true of an application like Google Maps. Most web applications aren't Google Maps though.

notyourwork 4y ago

Not all websites got it wrong. They are both a problem but one does not excuse the other in regards to ignoring the way the web spec works.

moring 4y ago
Not all SPAs do it wrong either, that's my point. Caring about the user is orthogonal to the technology used.
- notyourwork 4y ago
  Most SPAs get it wrong because it’s complex to make work well in a single page framework. It’s nearly impossible to get wrong with a traditional webpage.