You probably don't need a single-page app • Hacker News Board

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#491

Post by littlecranky67 » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

There are some features which will clearly call for a SPA over SSR, if you need

* to continuously play media (video/audio) while the user interacts with the web app (think modern youtube, soundcloud, spotify web, video news sites) * provide offline usage/features * highly interactive app with extensive use of drag'n'drop, animations, touch events etc. * data sync between browsers/tabs (think moving a ticket in a trello board should update the stacks in other open trello tabs or even for other users that currently view the board)

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#492

Post by dwild » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #417

chalupa-man wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree more. For anyone on a slower connection (I use a satellite connection that's 1 Mbps on a good day) a SPA is almost always a greatly superior user experience. A server-side rendered application is a blank white screen for roughly 50% of the time I'm using it. Even if a SPA takes longer to initially load, it's much nicer to keep the application actually onscreen while it's loading new content. Even…

1 Mbps and each page is 5 seconds? It sounds like huge pages you are viewing

1 Mbps * 5 = 5 Mb = 625 KB

That's not huge at all, you can barely fit a few pictures into that. The page we are on require 100 KB, the page it link require 300 KB, and both aren't big and have no image to show.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#493

Post by Existenceblinks » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

pennaMan wrote: post #485

Existenceblinks wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or your backend template engine is weak. In Elixir, EEx used in Phoenix, every template is a function. It's not supper good, but it's component (I hate term "component" and prefer "function")

But a component is a function that satisfies certain properties, why would you prefer to not to be precise in your communication? Do you call squares rectangles because you hate the term "squares"?

In my example, it's very precise that a template _is_ definitely a function. And conceptually I still think of it as function.

For your example I'd call it "squares" not because I don't hate it, but I don't think squares has something to do with "component"

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#494

Post by wolco » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

dwild wrote: post #492

wolco wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 Mbps and each page is 5 seconds? It sounds like huge pages you are viewing

1 Mbps * 5 = 5 Mb = 625 KB That's not huge at all, you can barely fit a few pictures into that. The page we are on require 100 KB, the page it link require 300 KB, and both aren't big and have no image to show.

I try to keep my pages down under 50k, 30k or less 80% of the time. Perhaps it's me but I think anything over 999k is insane unless it's spa or a page full of graphing function. My expectation that others are doing the same might be incorrect.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#495

Post by dimgl » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #416

dimgl wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean ludicrous? `node_modules` directory topping 60+ mb means nothing when the final product is an optimized bundle or a `node` process loaded in memory. A large majority of developers don't care about this because they're just looking to get actual work done... not sure why you're trying to "fix this". I'm also not sure what you're talking about when it comes to unclean code and complicated tooling. The tooling…

It's really down to language and ecosystem. JS as a language and NPM as a ecosystem are not as productive as C# and the .NET standard library, framework and Nuget. With WebAssembly, C# Razor Components will soon be able to run either server or client side and still maintain the same highly productive development that's missing from JS.

I’m sorry but I guess I’m still missing the point. How is it not productive? It takes me a few seconds to get a REST API going.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#496

Post by intrasight » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

Wait - what other type of application is there? I transitioned to SPAs 18 years ago and would never look back. That is for "applications". For web sites I would never use SPA. I stick with server-side rendered HTML.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#497

Post by KuhlMensch » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

ibty wrote: post #290

Twirrim wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With gmail: Move your mouse pointer down to the lower right corner of the tab. Do a forced refresh (Ctrl+f5) and you'll see some text pop up while it's loading, one of which is a link to a basic HTML version of the site. Click on it and you're back to what appears to be almost the original gmail interface. Up the top of the page you'll see an option to make it default. It's super fast. Almost absurdly so, compared to…

There is a direct link to access basic HTML version of GMail : http://mail.google.com/mail/h/

hm. So.

The SPA gmail platform has an _infuriatingly long_ loading screen, but once loaded the click-> to reading email _is_ quicker.

I suspect there is allot that can (and should) be done to optimize the SPA version.

But man, the html version is speedy.

I barely use email, but I'm going to put the html-only version into my rotation and see which one I gravitate toward.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#498

Post by latronic_notron » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #470

qudat wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a developer cannot meaningfully work within .NET without an IDE, it absolutely counts. Just like someone on the frontend cannot work without babel or typescript. Those libraries add specialized tooling for the project in question. Instead of downloading a runtime that has a huge std, in JS everything is downloaded on a per-project basis. I cannot speak to .NET, but want to work with python? Bring in one library an…

They complain because they're under the impression that everything in node_modules will end up shipped to the browser. It's also more visible. Python libraries are hidden in the environment far from your shell or file manager. So you don't know that your virtualenv weighs 300mb. But node_modules is right there, you can't help but look. In other words it's a complete lack of experience, regardless of how adamant the O…

Exactly.

For a while .NET Core also had a folder within the project for third-party NuGet modules, and for a simple web app they would go into the 200mb, and that's without the compiler itself. Now those files live in a hidden folder (or were absorbed by the stdlib), and nobody complains about it anymore.

Initiatives like Yarn's plug-and-play [1] would have the side effect of being great marketing for Node.js development.

[1] https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs/blob/master/accepted/0000-pl...

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#499

Post by collinmanderson » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #364

sirsuki wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any possibility that the added complexity is a symptom of the framework in use and not a general problem with ALL frameworks? I know I've experienced many projects and found server side rendering more complex then client side when using frameworks like Ember.js.

I'm a front-end engineer, but I'd agree that SPAs are always more complicated than a pure SSR solution: You're inherently doing more. You're probably already tracking state somewhere on the backend (e.g. in a database). An SPA means you now have to track state on the front-end too. There are benefits and things you can do with an SPA that you can't do with pure SSR, but they _do_ come at a cost. TANSTAAFL.

TANSTAAFL stands for: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

But I agree, that seems to be my impression. Single Page Apps allow higher quality User Interfaces (if done right), though they do require more work.

Re: You probably don't need a single-page app

#500

Post by oblib » Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

pojzon wrote: post #454

movedx wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This... yes. All you can do as a professional, with experience, is offer up an argument and attempt to make it convincing enough to compel people to do things your way. If they reject your option, defend only once, and no more. After that, simply step back and work with whatever technologies are decided upon. You can also attempt to work the social networking game and play (internal) politics. If you do these su…

> work with whatever technologies are decided upon. It may sound great when you learn something new, but when you worked with a technology and you know its deprecated crap - as a professional - you should also consider your own career.. Work on crap nobody uses for 5 years and you are so handicapped by that you "will" find a new job, but rather not a good one. Not everyone can spend hours at home to keep up with the…

That's true, but not really the same thing.

I was looking for work once and went to place that made wheelchair lifts for vans and buses. There was a miscommunication about what they were hiring for and when I got there they took me out to a drill press with a stack of thousands of parts on carts that needed a hole drilled in them.

I politely declined the position.