4 ms·
Whenever this “SSR vs SPA” question comes up, I feel like it’s the wrong question to ask, because neither is ideal. Server rendered or static sites make sense
by brap 4y ago
Whenever this “SSR vs SPA” question comes up, I feel like it’s the wrong question to ask, because neither is ideal.
Server rendered or static sites make sense in some specific use cases (e.g docs, blogs), but even for those classic use cases they’re not ideal (e.g full page reloads every time).
On the other hand, SPAs make sense in some specific use cases (e.g Gmail) but even for those classic use cases they’re not ideal (e.g first render takes time).
I think we always need both server and client rendering, regardless of the use case, and the question we need to ask is how can we achieve this in an ergonomic way.
There’s some progress being made there (e.g Next.js) but I feel like it’s not quite there yet.
- cyral 4y agoThe hybrid approach really is the best of both worlds, and it makes perfect sense to do the heavy lifting on the server initially and then turn over everything to the client rather than doing the heavy lifting again for every single subsequent request. Every time this comes up though there is the snarky "lol SSR isn't new, are JS devs just learning about it???" type response here.