61–70 of 637 posts
SPAs were not a mistake, SPAs were an attempt to make the front end work like front ends have ALWAYS worked. Back before the web people made C++ and VB user interfaces that interact directly with the data source. SPAs are an attempt to make the web closer to that well known paradigm. POST REDIRECT REFRESH cycle was an insane programming paradigm that wasn't found in any previous edition of programming.
Most SPAs don't interact directly with the datasource, but interact with a middle service. Also many older architecture do draw entire "pages" on the screen at once, rather than manipulating only individual components. (at least not on every interaction)
"Pages" are similarly in SPAs too. We usually have a router that helps the app decide what main "page" is on the screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the idea of essentially removing the network round trip when a user clicks on something is not a bad one. Practical SPA's have many more network roundtrips than the equivalent server-rendered web interface. Every AJAX request is an extra roundtrip, unless it can be handled in parallel with others in which case you're still dependent on the slowest request to complete. With SSR, you can take care of everything with…
I pretty strongly disagree with this. The distinct advantage of an SPA is that, done correctly, cached data lets you render pages instantly. Who CARES if the SPA had to make 3xRTT in the background, if it can serve the next page up instantly because that data is already present and cached, it's a huge win. The server rendered app will ALWAYS have to wait at least 1xRTT for every new render. The SPA does not. Still do…
Not necessarily. I think you're conflating caching/fetching and rendering here. You can cache rendered views in the same way you'd cache the data for those views.
Turbo does this, for example. When you navigate to a cached page it will display the page from the cache first, then make a request to update the cache in the background. So it's similar to what you describe, but with server-rendered content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the idea of essentially removing the network round trip when a user clicks on something is not a bad one. Practical SPA's have many more network roundtrips than the equivalent server-rendered web interface. Every AJAX request is an extra roundtrip, unless it can be handled in parallel with others in which case you're still dependent on the slowest request to complete. With SSR, you can take care of everything with…
I pretty strongly disagree with this. The distinct advantage of an SPA is that, done correctly, cached data lets you render pages instantly. Who CARES if the SPA had to make 3xRTT in the background, if it can serve the next page up instantly because that data is already present and cached, it's a huge win. The server rendered app will ALWAYS have to wait at least 1xRTT for every new render. The SPA does not. Still do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pretty strongly disagree with this. The distinct advantage of an SPA is that, done correctly, cached data lets you render pages instantly. Who CARES if the SPA had to make 3xRTT in the background, if it can serve the next page up instantly because that data is already present and cached, it's a huge win. The server rendered app will ALWAYS have to wait at least 1xRTT for every new render. The SPA does not. Still do…
Unless their cache is cold and then they navigate back before your first render completes. Often we are not the sole source of a piece of information and first load time counts.
This doesn't matter. It's an SPA - my js context hasn't been wiped because I'm not letting the back button eat the whole thing and start over. I just complete the request and store in cache either way, and next time they hit it, it will be there.
> Often we are not the sole source of a piece of information and first load time counts.
Sure - caching is hard (full stop - it's really hard). But I think if you actually consider most applications, there's not really much difference between an SPA rendering from cache and a server-side page that a user hasn't refreshed in a bit.
Basically - it's not going to solve all your problems, but in my experience developers really underestimate how much usage is "read only" and a cache works fine.
Anyone can choose the tech stack, patterns, or whatever that he likes. But developers enjoy being absolutists, and deem something they don't like as a MISTAKE, or would tell you that the way they think is the ONLY way to think. You do your app the way you want depending on the Ux you want to provide, on the tech you enjoy implementing, on the patterns you like to follow.
> Anyone can choose the tech stack, patterns, or whatever that he likes Maybe for personal projects, but 99% of us have to use the tech stack, pattern or whatever of our employer that was decided on (presumedly by some consensus at some point in the past). Publicly pointing out the flaws in what might have made sense then but might not make sense now is a Good Thing so that those flaws might be taken into considerati…
But every conversation has someone spouting off like these are experiments in a Petri dish. Petri dish projects don’t matter. Haven’t for a long time.
The problem with SPAs is that they have been misused and overused, at least in Italy. Tons of projects built with SPA in which we have to re-implement basic browser features like the back button, just because project manager has no idea of how this technology works. I've worked on at least 4 projects which could be written in Nextjs in half of the time
Hate to break it to you but Nextjs is for building SPAs.
However, the way NextJS implements SSR is really weird right now : if you use their component, the pages props are actually fetched with an XHR request, then the page is rendered. I don't know why. It does feel like an SPA in the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the idea of essentially removing the network round trip when a user clicks on something is not a bad one. Practical SPA's have many more network roundtrips than the equivalent server-rendered web interface. Every AJAX request is an extra roundtrip, unless it can be handled in parallel with others in which case you're still dependent on the slowest request to complete. With SSR, you can take care of everything with…
I pretty strongly disagree with this. The distinct advantage of an SPA is that, done correctly, cached data lets you render pages instantly. Who CARES if the SPA had to make 3xRTT in the background, if it can serve the next page up instantly because that data is already present and cached, it's a huge win. The server rendered app will ALWAYS have to wait at least 1xRTT for every new render. The SPA does not. Still do…
SPAs are a pattern that's been applied too broadly IMO, but it's going a bit far to call them a mistake. The aims of an SPA are pretty noble - the idea of essentially removing the network round trip when a user clicks on something is not a bad one. It means things are faster, they work if your connection is flaky, they can do things like offline support. Those are good features. They might not be actual requirements…
And therein lies the problem. In the _vast_ majority of SPA sites I've been to, they are not "well done" by this definition. It is commonplace for things to break, like the back button as the quintessential example, because the developer(s) didn't spend the time to make sure things work correctly. With a non-SPA site, you generally have to go out of your way _to_ break those same things.
I like SPAs for some things (gmail being a good example), but they should not be the default implementation; there should be a _very_ strong argument before the SPA architecture is used.
SPAs were not a mistake, SPAs were an attempt to make the front end work like front ends have ALWAYS worked. Back before the web people made C++ and VB user interfaces that interact directly with the data source. SPAs are an attempt to make the web closer to that well known paradigm. POST REDIRECT REFRESH cycle was an insane programming paradigm that wasn't found in any previous edition of programming.
Actually I'm old enough to remember old mainframe CICS programming that was a lot closer to the form-based HTML server-side programming of old. When "the web" came out in the mid-90's, it was actually a "blast from the past".