4 ms·

Why SPAs became popular? Because they "feel" native on mobile. Now you have page transitions and prefetch which really should kill this use case. IMO the bloat

by dudus 3y ago

Why SPAs became popular? Because they "feel" native on mobile. Now you have page transitions and prefetch which really should kill this use case. IMO the bloat he talks about on the post is not representative of 2024. Pretty much all frontend development of the last 2 years has been moving away from SPAs with smaller builds and faster loading times. Fair enough it's still visible in a lot of sites. But I'd argue it's probably better now than a couple years ago.

wruza 3y ago
Personally, I don't see why one would hate SPA concept. I like it, because it enables to lower the traffic and make interactions... normal? And to use local computing when possible, instead of adding 2 and 2 over HTTP. When people hate SPAs they actually hate terminally overweight abominations that no one (i.e. google) keeps in check, and that's the reason they are like that. Why should on-page interaction be slow or cost one 20MB of downloads? No reason. replaceChild() uses the same tech as <a href>. SPA is not a synonym for "impotent incompetence 11/10". If humanity didn't invent SPAs, all these companies would just make half-a-minute loading .aspx-es instead. Because anything else they can not.
troupo 3y ago
> Why SPAs became popular? Because they "feel" native on mobile. They... Don't :) The absolute vast majority of them is a shittier, slower, clunkier version of a native app > IMO the bloat he talks about on the post is not representative of 2024. Pretty much all frontend development of the last 2 years has been moving away from SPAs with smaller builds and faster loading times. He literally lists Vercel there. One of the leaders in "oh look at our beautiful fast slim apps". Their front page loads 6.5 megabytes of javascript in 131 requests to those smaller bundles.

4 ms·

Why SPAs became popular? Because they "feel" native on mobile. Now you have page transitions and prefetch which really should kill this use case. IMO the bloat

by dudus 3y ago

wruza 3y ago
Personally, I don't see why one would hate SPA concept. I like it, because it enables to lower the traffic and make interactions... normal? And to use local computing when possible, instead of adding 2 and 2 over HTTP. When people hate SPAs they actually hate terminally overweight abominations that no one (i.e. google) keeps in check, and that's the reason they are like that. Why should on-page interaction be slow or cost one 20MB of downloads? No reason. replaceChild() uses the same tech as <a href>. SPA is not a synonym for "impotent incompetence 11/10". If humanity didn't invent SPAs, all these companies would just make half-a-minute loading .aspx-es instead. Because anything else they can not.
troupo 3y ago
> Why SPAs became popular? Because they "feel" native on mobile. They... Don't :) The absolute vast majority of them is a shittier, slower, clunkier version of a native app > IMO the bloat he talks about on the post is not representative of 2024. Pretty much all frontend development of the last 2 years has been moving away from SPAs with smaller builds and faster loading times. He literally lists Vercel there. One of the leaders in "oh look at our beautiful fast slim apps". Their front page loads 6.5 megabytes of javascript in 131 requests to those smaller bundles.