7 ms·

I feel that this argument is pretty outdated at this point. Most new SPAs people build use frameworks like NextJS that solve all of the big complaints. Sure,

I feel that this argument is pretty outdated at this point. Most new SPAs people build use frameworks like NextJS that solve all of the big complaints. Sure, there's plenty of old, crufty SPAs from the pre-react-router days still out there. I also dislike those apps. I guess my point is... there was a time when you could blanketly hate SPAs and be mostly right about the category. And you could be mad at a company for even daring to try because they were very likely to screw it up. But I think we are now past that period. SPAs are now pretty awesome and fast and good! Edit: ah, this article is from 2016. Which actually was a very valid time to hate SPAs! Maybe this is a good moment to applaud the hard work of folks at Vercel for fixing the problem :-)

tekla 2y ago
Please give me a site in NextJS that doesnt break my browser
- rareitem 2y ago
  the new Node.js website is made NextJs
- Rauchg 2y ago
  some that i've built recently with app router that are intentionally minimalistic - https://rauchg.com https://rauchg.com - https://next-ai-news.vercel.app/ https://next-ai-news.vercel.app/ - https://emoji-todo.vercel.app/ https://emoji-todo.vercel.app/ Next.js scales up and down in complexity / ambition. On perf: - https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1652093980958683137 https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1652093980958683137 - https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1744183168541007878 https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1744183168541007878
  - stavros 2y ago
    Two of those three are simple content sites. Why even use JS at all? I feel like we're reinventing the wheel with a ton of added complexity these days.
    - Rauchg 2y ago
      JS is used for fast page transitions and stuff like that, but funny enough I'm pretty sure I end up shipping less JS overall by running server-side JS. Last I checked, a Tweet embed alone was several mbs of JS, and it causes a bunch of layout shift and loads third party resources. On my blog they're pre-rerendered and shipped statically[1] Probably the strongest reason though is to not set a 'power cap' on your project unnecessarily. It'd suck to have to rewrite a project because you got trapped in a local maxima, which is why i always share you can have your 100 lighthouse cake & eat it too. [1] https://rauchg.com/2021/making-the-web-faster#next-momentum https://rauchg.com/2021/making-the-web-faster#next-momentum
GuB-42 2y ago
The question is why? Sometimes SPAs are justified, like for a webmail, but in many cases, what is the point? For example, I see the Washington Post on the front page of NextJS. It is a newspaper, serving articles is what the web does best, you really don't need to do anything but serve static HTML files, with a style sheet if you are fancy, and the browser does everything else for you.
- stavros 2y ago
  Yeah :( Unfortunately, frontend developers have all specialized on building SPAs, and that's all they build now. I've tried to change this in my company, but the frontend devs resist strongly.
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    Being a frontend developer for years has taught me not to rely on JavaScript whenever possible. I'm not sure how can one go past the junior stage and not come to that conclusion while being honest with themselves.
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      How did it?
- PebblesHD 2y ago
  I agree with you, however: The WaPo has a veeeeery wide variety of endpoint devices. If they stuck to HTML + CSS it would mean an imperfect output on things like kiosk panels, public news stand displays, ebook readers etc. or needing to maintain multiple output services server side, with potentially different authoring considerations. With their current approach, they can share one content authoring environment over an API that splits all render concerns to the consuming client. Sounds a lot like what HTML was supposed to do in the first place doesn’t it… but not all devices support arbitrary html web browsing, nor would you want to serve a full page to most , so the next best option (according to some) is API plus javascript client for the web side of things. While I don’t think this path is correct, given the tools we have I do see why it is used so frequently.

tekla 2y ago

Please give me a site in NextJS that doesnt break my browser

rareitem 2y ago
the new Node.js website is made NextJs
Rauchg 2y ago
some that i've built recently with app router that are intentionally minimalistic - https://rauchg.com https://rauchg.com - https://next-ai-news.vercel.app/ https://next-ai-news.vercel.app/ - https://emoji-todo.vercel.app/ https://emoji-todo.vercel.app/ Next.js scales up and down in complexity / ambition. On perf: - https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1652093980958683137 https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1652093980958683137 - https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1744183168541007878 https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1744183168541007878
- stavros 2y ago
  Two of those three are simple content sites. Why even use JS at all? I feel like we're reinventing the wheel with a ton of added complexity these days.
  - Rauchg 2y ago
    JS is used for fast page transitions and stuff like that, but funny enough I'm pretty sure I end up shipping less JS overall by running server-side JS. Last I checked, a Tweet embed alone was several mbs of JS, and it causes a bunch of layout shift and loads third party resources. On my blog they're pre-rerendered and shipped statically[1] Probably the strongest reason though is to not set a 'power cap' on your project unnecessarily. It'd suck to have to rewrite a project because you got trapped in a local maxima, which is why i always share you can have your 100 lighthouse cake & eat it too. [1] https://rauchg.com/2021/making-the-web-faster#next-momentum https://rauchg.com/2021/making-the-web-faster#next-momentum

GuB-42 2y ago

The question is why? Sometimes SPAs are justified, like for a webmail, but in many cases, what is the point? For example, I see the Washington Post on the front page of NextJS. It is a newspaper, serving articles is what the web does best, you really don't need to do anything but serve static HTML files, with a style sheet if you are fancy, and the browser does everything else for you.

stavros 2y ago
Yeah :( Unfortunately, frontend developers have all specialized on building SPAs, and that's all they build now. I've tried to change this in my company, but the frontend devs resist strongly.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  Being a frontend developer for years has taught me not to rely on JavaScript whenever possible. I'm not sure how can one go past the junior stage and not come to that conclusion while being honest with themselves.
  - tcfhgj 2y ago
    How did it?
PebblesHD 2y ago
I agree with you, however: The WaPo has a veeeeery wide variety of endpoint devices. If they stuck to HTML + CSS it would mean an imperfect output on things like kiosk panels, public news stand displays, ebook readers etc. or needing to maintain multiple output services server side, with potentially different authoring considerations. With their current approach, they can share one content authoring environment over an API that splits all render concerns to the consuming client. Sounds a lot like what HTML was supposed to do in the first place doesn’t it… but not all devices support arbitrary html web browsing, nor would you want to serve a full page to most , so the next best option (according to some) is API plus javascript client for the web side of things. While I don’t think this path is correct, given the tools we have I do see why it is used so frequently.