4 ms·

This is motte-and-bailey argumentation in my opinion. The motte: SPAs are a good way to write highly complex applications in the browser, like Photoshop and Fi

This is motte-and-bailey argumentation in my opinion. The motte: SPAs are a good way to write highly complex applications in the browser, like Photoshop and Figma, to compete with desktop apps. The bailey: SPAs are a good way to write most web applications. If you attack the bailey, proponents retreat to the motte, which is hard to disagree with. With the motte successfully defended, proponents return to the bailey, beneficial for those enthusiastic about SPAs but much harder to defend. The only way to tease this issue apart is to stick to specifics and avoid casting SPAs or MPAs as universally good or bad. Show me the use-case and we can decide which route is best.

danielvaughn 3y ago
Or even avoid discussing SPAs or MPAs entirely. At the end of the day, we're talking about whether a specific interaction (or a set of interactions) can be handled over the network or not. If you need the interaction to fully resolve (as in the state is updated and the success or failure of the interaction is visible to the user) within 800ms or so, then it shouldn't be performed over the network. For interactive editors like Figma, you often have interactions based on key repeats, which usually fire at 50-200ms intervals. So client-side rendering is really the only feasible option.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  > If you need the interaction to fully resolve (as in the state is updated and the success or failure of the interaction is visible to the user) within 800ms or so, then it shouldn't be performed over the network. Most real-world SPA sites perform a lot more roundtrips over the network than the MPA equivalent, not less. And every roundtrip adds yet another 800ms to your update latency, plus the risk that some random network failure will break the SPA state update and force you to reload it from scratch.
  - inopinatus 3y ago
    Those who do not remember Lotus Notes are doomed to reinvent it.
aatd86 3y ago
Strangely enough, this dichotomy seems to exist only for the web platform. Everywhere else (desktop, mobile etc) the model is SPAs. The only reason people distinguish it for web is because of legacy: html + DOM, i.e. Documents. Documents don't generally require programmers even if using lateX. Both models can coexist. I believe that SPAs somewhat supersede MPAs and that an MPA can be a simplification sometimes for a specific kind of apps, a website being simply an app that has been broken apart and is sent piece by piece.
- lloeki 3y ago
  Oh my, may I remind folks about SDI vs MDI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface Or the window-is-application/process (Windows, Linux DEs) vs window-is-document-and-application-is-independent (MacOS) models Or spatial navigation vs file browser.
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  > Strangely enough, this dichotomy seems to exist only for the web platform. > Everywhere else (desktop, mobile etc) the model is SPAs. It exists for CLIs too, where some projects provide a collection of single-purpose programs (e.g. imagemagick) and others provide a single program which can do many things (e.g. git)
  - masfuerte 3y ago
    git is a facade and "git add" actually calls "git-add". On Windows this means separate exes, git-add.exe, git-commit.exe, git-update.exe, etc. But all these exes are actually identical. So git is multiple copies of a single program which can do many things!
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    No not really. Yes there are two approaches, but you can switch between the two with 98% of the code intact.
    - 3y ago
xpe 3y ago
A fun metaphor. A SPA-inclined team/consultancy/department will retreat to their motte when necessary. They'll live to fight another day. Given a chance, they'll return to the bailey, advocating for SPAs under a relaxed standard. Using this metaphor can imply significant disingenuity: a lack of honesty about one's true belief.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Using this metaphor can imply significant disingenuity: a lack of honesty about one's true belief. I actually disagree. I think this is the natural state of people, and they come by it honestly. We make decisions emotionally and then justify them rationally. It's just the way we are. You could maybe say it's a lack of honesty about one's true belief to themselves. But even then it's hard to fault somebody for lack of awareness for something that is very subtle. Honestly I think pointing out this human tendency and calling it out with examples like this is the best way to combat it. Once people become aware of it, they are more likely to fight it internally.
  - xpe 3y ago
    Two things. First, yes, people can deceive themselves. To the extent this is true, I take your point; it isn’t a matter of honesty in the usual sense; it is perhaps better stated in terms of self inconsistency; i.e. having internal contradictions in one’s beliefs. Second, people do can and do lie about this kind of thing. I’m talking about conscious deception. Motives vary; they range from “I’ll pick my battles” to “this is good for my income stream” to “these other people don’t know it yet, but I’m right, and they’ll thank me later” and others.
  - xpe 3y ago
    > … I think pointing out this human tendency and calling it out with examples like this is the best way to combat it. Once people become aware of it, they are more likely to fight it internally. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it just causes people to dig in deeper.
cabalamat 3y ago
> beneficial for those enthusiastic about SPAs It's almost as if some developers choose technologies based on "what'll look good on my CV"
marcosdumay 3y ago
Oh, here we go. When we start to even think about debate fallacies when comparing engineering methodologies, it's completely clear we already lost the game. In fact, we also lost the meta game, and probably some 2 or 3 outer meta layers of it. So yes, we should design software for the specifics of the function it will provide. Do not let people evade their competency by talking in generalities.

danielvaughn 3y ago

Or even avoid discussing SPAs or MPAs entirely. At the end of the day, we're talking about whether a specific interaction (or a set of interactions) can be handled over the network or not. If you need the interaction to fully resolve (as in the state is updated and the success or failure of the interaction is visible to the user) within 800ms or so, then it shouldn't be performed over the network. For interactive editors like Figma, you often have interactions based on key repeats, which usually fire at 50-200ms intervals. So client-side rendering is really the only feasible option.

zozbot234 3y ago
> If you need the interaction to fully resolve (as in the state is updated and the success or failure of the interaction is visible to the user) within 800ms or so, then it shouldn't be performed over the network. Most real-world SPA sites perform a lot more roundtrips over the network than the MPA equivalent, not less. And every roundtrip adds yet another 800ms to your update latency, plus the risk that some random network failure will break the SPA state update and force you to reload it from scratch.
- inopinatus 3y ago
  Those who do not remember Lotus Notes are doomed to reinvent it.

aatd86 3y ago

Strangely enough, this dichotomy seems to exist only for the web platform. Everywhere else (desktop, mobile etc) the model is SPAs. The only reason people distinguish it for web is because of legacy: html + DOM, i.e. Documents. Documents don't generally require programmers even if using lateX. Both models can coexist. I believe that SPAs somewhat supersede MPAs and that an MPA can be a simplification sometimes for a specific kind of apps, a website being simply an app that has been broken apart and is sent piece by piece.

lloeki 3y ago
Oh my, may I remind folks about SDI vs MDI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface Or the window-is-application/process (Windows, Linux DEs) vs window-is-document-and-application-is-independent (MacOS) models Or spatial navigation vs file browser.
chriswarbo 3y ago
> Strangely enough, this dichotomy seems to exist only for the web platform. > Everywhere else (desktop, mobile etc) the model is SPAs. It exists for CLIs too, where some projects provide a collection of single-purpose programs (e.g. imagemagick) and others provide a single program which can do many things (e.g. git)
- masfuerte 3y ago
  git is a facade and "git add" actually calls "git-add". On Windows this means separate exes, git-add.exe, git-commit.exe, git-update.exe, etc. But all these exes are actually identical. So git is multiple copies of a single program which can do many things!
- paulddraper 3y ago
  No not really. Yes there are two approaches, but you can switch between the two with 98% of the code intact.
  - 3y ago

xpe 3y ago

A fun metaphor. A SPA-inclined team/consultancy/department will retreat to their motte when necessary. They'll live to fight another day. Given a chance, they'll return to the bailey, advocating for SPAs under a relaxed standard. Using this metaphor can imply significant disingenuity: a lack of honesty about one's true belief.

freedomben 3y ago
> Using this metaphor can imply significant disingenuity: a lack of honesty about one's true belief. I actually disagree. I think this is the natural state of people, and they come by it honestly. We make decisions emotionally and then justify them rationally. It's just the way we are. You could maybe say it's a lack of honesty about one's true belief to themselves. But even then it's hard to fault somebody for lack of awareness for something that is very subtle. Honestly I think pointing out this human tendency and calling it out with examples like this is the best way to combat it. Once people become aware of it, they are more likely to fight it internally.
- xpe 3y ago
  Two things. First, yes, people can deceive themselves. To the extent this is true, I take your point; it isn’t a matter of honesty in the usual sense; it is perhaps better stated in terms of self inconsistency; i.e. having internal contradictions in one’s beliefs. Second, people do can and do lie about this kind of thing. I’m talking about conscious deception. Motives vary; they range from “I’ll pick my battles” to “this is good for my income stream” to “these other people don’t know it yet, but I’m right, and they’ll thank me later” and others.
- xpe 3y ago
  > … I think pointing out this human tendency and calling it out with examples like this is the best way to combat it. Once people become aware of it, they are more likely to fight it internally. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it just causes people to dig in deeper.

cabalamat 3y ago

> beneficial for those enthusiastic about SPAs It's almost as if some developers choose technologies based on "what'll look good on my CV"

marcosdumay 3y ago

Oh, here we go. When we start to even think about debate fallacies when comparing engineering methodologies, it's completely clear we already lost the game. In fact, we also lost the meta game, and probably some 2 or 3 outer meta layers of it. So yes, we should design software for the specifics of the function it will provide. Do not let people evade their competency by talking in generalities.