4 ms·

As a solo developer, especially when you are building free stuff to scratch your itch, of course you are free to pick whatever tech works best for you. My compl

As a solo developer, especially when you are building free stuff to scratch your itch, of course you are free to pick whatever tech works best for you. My complaint is that this kind of mindset extends beyond solo developers to dev teams in commercial companies, and even worse, in the public sector.

curtisblaine 2y ago
I tend to not understand that mindset as well: unless they're writing life saving software or they're running a de facto (like Google) or de jure (like .gov) monopoly(+), which means you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice. If they provide a worse experience, don't use their services / use an alternative that provides a better experience. If they provide a good experience at the cost of running Javascript on your device, you still have the choice of not using their service, or of making an exception for them and running their code. Someone can even write an alternative and market it to anti-SPA folks. (+) If they are a monopoly, I would say that the problem are not SPAs, but the existence of monopolies itself.
- azangru 2y ago
  > unless they're writing life saving software or ... you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice The technology is always (or almost always?) their choice. However, if it is a public sector organisation, it owes it to the public to care about them, to be informed about devices they are using and the conditions they are using them in; and to strive to provide its services in the most accessible way. "How fast does a page load", "how fast does the page perform on users' devices once it's loaded", and "how gracefully it degrades under unfavorable conditions" should be important parts of the conversation. Businesses in the private sector have fewer responsibilities to the public, and are primarily controlled by market forces; but still, it would probably benefit them to have similar considerations.

curtisblaine 2y ago

I tend to not understand that mindset as well: unless they're writing life saving software or they're running a de facto (like Google) or de jure (like .gov) monopoly(+), which means you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice. If they provide a worse experience, don't use their services / use an alternative that provides a better experience. If they provide a good experience at the cost of running Javascript on your device, you still have the choice of not using their service, or of making an exception for them and running their code. Someone can even write an alternative and market it to anti-SPA folks. (+) If they are a monopoly, I would say that the problem are not SPAs, but the existence of monopolies itself.

azangru 2y ago
> unless they're writing life saving software or ... you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice The technology is always (or almost always?) their choice. However, if it is a public sector organisation, it owes it to the public to care about them, to be informed about devices they are using and the conditions they are using them in; and to strive to provide its services in the most accessible way. "How fast does a page load", "how fast does the page perform on users' devices once it's loaded", and "how gracefully it degrades under unfavorable conditions" should be important parts of the conversation. Businesses in the private sector have fewer responsibilities to the public, and are primarily controlled by market forces; but still, it would probably benefit them to have similar considerations.