251–260 of 637 posts
Also, this article does not even mention the fact that SPAs are terrible for SEO. Of course, that's not an issue for YouTube, but it might be a huge issue for your clients, unless it's ok to not have any search traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like most people that hate SPAs never have to deal with this type of thing, or even only have to work on the backend. They just don't get it. Of course, if you're using a SPA for a static website, you're also doing it wrong but that doesn't mean SPA itself is a bad thing.
I'm living proof that it is possible to simultaneously hate SPAs and understand why they are popular. I've built and worked on a number of them, I don't have a better alternative to recommend, and yet I still hate them because I think they are a clunky solution to the problem. We need something better, but I'm not smart enough to come up with what that should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I preload basically all the data a user might need at startup This can be a great strategy when you're dealing with bounded data that's not sensitive, but it's important to recognize that this approach is often inappropriate. A web app may be allowing users to wander around terabytes of data, or it may need to make highly consistent authorization determinations before allowing a user to see specific data, or you ma…
> Still doesn't make an SPA the right fit for everything
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried to use a heavily SPAed site from a slow, distant (high latency), or metered connection? A SPA that works and feels great from a big city quickly becomes unbearable when internet access isn't as ideal. There are ways to handle this nicely, but maybe 5% of devs actually think about and test that, and no PM will allocate sprint time for it.
Have you tried to use a site that reloads all the data on every click, from a slow, distant (high latency), or metered connection? Same problem.
That said there are plenty of SSR sites that are terrible too. It's not the technology that's at fault, but SPAs and common dev patterns in the community definitely enable and encourage making lots of small requests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried to use a heavily SPAed site from a slow, distant (high latency), or metered connection? A SPA that works and feels great from a big city quickly becomes unbearable when internet access isn't as ideal. There are ways to handle this nicely, but maybe 5% of devs actually think about and test that, and no PM will allocate sprint time for it.
In case of slow internet, SPAs are much easier to make responsive than an SSR application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't a template essentially a "function" that takes data and returns a view? I don't have much experience with UI programming but I don't really see the conceptual difference.
No, the template is usually a static file that is read into memory and served over HTTP or locally if it's a JS only site. But before being served, it's being picked at via imperative operations. And if it's really bad, then when a user presses a button it triggers some event that actually statefully changes the view itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental issue with SPAs is that it's building on multiple levels of technology that fundamentally weren't designed to support being a single page application. The browser multiple pages paradigm is pretty much how the web evolved, so SPA's just end up being one giant hack to get everything working. UWP/WPF/any other desktop app framework demonstrates how easy developing a 'single page application' can…
In my opinion, UWP/WPF/aodaf makes it easy because it just doesn't implement the things a user is used to in a browser (bookmarkability, back button, ...). If you ignore those things in your SPA, much of the "cruft" is negligible.
As for bookmarks, that's semi-right, but the web platform conflates the back button with bookmark-ability in ways that are quite confusing. If you want the back button to get the user out of your settings screen, then you must push a new URL onto the history stack using JavaScript, but then if the user bookmarks your site they'll bookmark the settings screen specifically even though that's very unlikely to be what they wanted. Non-web apps that have enough content to need something like bookmarks often implement a similar mechanism that's more predictable, albeit less general.
The OPs article is really a common lament amongst web developers - they're (ab)using a tool that was never meant for what they're using it for. It's a real and very serious problem in our industry.
The whole SPA vs multi-page dichotomy really emerges because the web doesn't have sufficiently rich, modular or low level APIs. If you look at non-web frameworks like iOS or Java then you get a huge number of APIs (usually classes) tackling the low levels of a problem, then more classes building on the lower levels to give you higher level solutions. Those classes can usually be customized in many different ways, so the amount of control a developer has is enormous. If you start with a high level helper class and find you can't customize it to meet your needs, you can reimplement it using the lower level building blocks.
The web isn't like this. Web APIs are an absolute pigs ear of very high level function calls and classes designed in more or less random ways to quickly hack together a solution to whatever need a browser maker had at the time. HTML5 supports peer-to-peer video streaming and augmented reality but not a virtualized table view. In many cases it's obvious that little or no thought went into the APIs, e.g. XMLHTTPRequest has nothing to do with XML, you can open a URL for a custom URL handler but not detect if that URL will work ahead of time, nor even if opening that URL worked once you try it, and so on. Instead of starting with low level APIs and composing them into high level APIs, browsers start with high level APIs and then introduce entirely orthogonal low level APIs decades later, or never.
These sorts of problems just don't occur when writing desktop apps with professionally designed frameworks - even in the rare cases that you hit some limit of the framework, you can (these days) just patch it directly and ship a fixed version with your app. If you hit a problem in the browser you're just SOL and have to hack around it.
Our industry needs to reinvigorate desktop apps. Attempting to convert browsers into Qt/Java/.NET competitors has:
a. Made HTML5 unimplementable, even by Microsoft. It's not so much a spec anymore as a guide to whatever Chrome happens to do on the day you read it (hopefully).
b. Created tons of security holes.
c. Yielded an atrocious and steadily decaying developer experience.
I think one of the unsolved problems of client-side interactivity on websites is how difficult it is to add it just a little bit of extra client-side functionality to a traditional server rendered website. For example, recently I had to deal with photo uploads on a Rails app, which works fine out of the box at first, until you want to show progress bars and uploaded previews etc. Then you add a couple of client-side…
Exactly. I've been in the position various times where I'm embedding a JS app on a page to help the user do something highly interactive, usually creating/editing content. And then as it's expanding to integrate with other things on the site, I start to wish more of the site was in the JS-app side of things. Sometimes I realize a SPA would have simply served the user better, and it doesn't necessarily take much to be…
Acquiescing to every demand product designers and management throw into the mix is what turns beautiful, easily-maintained codebases into nightmares.
What people are talking about here is writing web apps as a series of small, tightly-coupled spas who manage state within very specific parameters. And that's a great way to build software. Until someone comes in and asks you to draw in the state from one section into two other sections. You have the choice to say a) no and explain why, to b) create a clever "glue" that will be hard to maintain and difficult to explain, or to c) take the time to refactor the code into something more general and complex to allow for the feature on a more abstract level.
Guess which one almost always gets chosen.
The upshot is this: The solution to front-end complexity may not be a technical one, it may not require a new framework or library. It may be a shift in what we expect out of the web. We could always temper our expectations in order to keep our code clean.