2 ms·

Can't argue with that, because most public-facing "apps" are mostly read-only. However after a bunch of years working for a software house I can tell you that t

Can't argue with that, because most public-facing "apps" are mostly read-only. However after a bunch of years working for a software house I can tell you that there are a lot of "non-user" reasons for choosing SPAs. The ecosystem of all SPAs offers unparalleled developer experience that allows you to create many complex apps really fast and reuse a shitload of components, interactions, animations and whatnot. With basically 0 effort you can also create mobile and desktop apps from the same code. And the talent pool for something like React is a lot bigger and a lot more "UI/UX-friendly" than in whatever "backend-tech" of your choice. I work in .NET and when we recruit devs a lot if not most of them straight up hate frontend or don't care about UI/UX at all so we kind of can't do shit with them alone anyway. It's easier and cheaper to recruit a bunch of React devs. TL;DR: money math works in SPA's favor, users be damned

stavros 2y ago
Eh, most of the components you can reuse would work OK as pure HTML components anyway, and the "create many complex apps really fast" is definitely true, except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti you have to rewrite. Ask me how I know...
- amonith 2y ago
  > except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti you have to rewrite Small correction from a software house perspective: except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti THE CLIENT has to rewrite OR PAY YOU TO REWRITE :D And with this: > most of the components you can reuse would work OK as pure HTML components anyway I unfortunately cannot agree. It is theoretically true from pure "it's possible" standpoint but it was not my experience in pre-jQuery times. The shit backend devs did with concatenating html + JS snippets as strings wrapped in various patterns like the builder to make it configurable was pure maintenance horror. I don't miss it at all.

stavros 2y ago

Eh, most of the components you can reuse would work OK as pure HTML components anyway, and the "create many complex apps really fast" is definitely true, except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti you have to rewrite. Ask me how I know...

amonith 2y ago
> except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti you have to rewrite Small correction from a software house perspective: except a year down the line the app is a complicated piece of spaghetti THE CLIENT has to rewrite OR PAY YOU TO REWRITE :D And with this: > most of the components you can reuse would work OK as pure HTML components anyway I unfortunately cannot agree. It is theoretically true from pure "it's possible" standpoint but it was not my experience in pre-jQuery times. The shit backend devs did with concatenating html + JS snippets as strings wrapped in various patterns like the builder to make it configurable was pure maintenance horror. I don't miss it at all.