Why I hate your Single Page App • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#121

Post by Skinney » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 1:28 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #114

imglorp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the prime directive of all UI should be, "Ack UI inputs immediately, no matter what else is going on." Throw up a spinner, make something throb, change a status to "loading", anything. Don't just go off and attempt to do it and hope for timely response.

Why can't the browser do this? I mean, it's a universal function / feature, right? And ultimately, it's the browsers that's waiting, not to application per se. (Yeah, I okay. But you know what I mean). I can't think of any good reason why the browsers can't help out with this UI / UX. Am I crazy?

Technically, in a SPA, the browser isn't waiting. Clicking the link just triggers a function call.

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#122

Post by Skinney » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #82

philosopherlawr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're basing a lot of this viewpoint on fast internet connections. Javascript code rendering will be faster if you have a slow internet connection and are using an updated browser with a fast javascript engine

Eh, I've yet to experience an spa that feels or is faster than the equivalent simple html, no matter what network I'm on - with the exception of being off-line (and I've seen few enough spas that actually work better offline than static pages, ie not broken navigation/functionality). Note that I've of course seen countless slow, bloated static pages - but that's pretty much never because of the tech stack - but becau…

How do you know when you're using a SPA and when you're not? Seems to me, a well designed SPA is indistinguishable from a regular HTML site unless you're actively looking at the network tab. Could it be that you have a bad impression of SPAs, because you only really notice it when you're using a badly designed one?

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#123

Post by Skinney » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

twobyfour wrote: post #6

This. A thousand times this. And if you do it for a content site, you deserve a special place in hell.

That place reserved for child molestors and people who speak at the theatre?

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#124

Post by howlgram » Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 9:08 AM UTC

philosopherlawr wrote: post #51

tjoff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably have never tried a classic HTML "app": 1. Every click is fetched and rendered faster than your javascript code has had a chance to execute, let alone fetch or render. 2. True, minor headache though compared to the vast improvements in usability. 3. Nope. 4. Nope, this is a bug - something javascript pages most certainly are not immune against.

You're basing a lot of this viewpoint on fast internet connections. Javascript code rendering will be faster if you have a slow internet connection and are using an updated browser with a fast javascript engine

i much rather see my html page slowly loading before me than a js button that doesn't load and when i decide that it's taking too long and i want to go back then everything just messes up because it doesn't work with the back button in the browser

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#125

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

Xoros wrote: post #55

ruleabidinguser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not evaluating them based on requirements you didn't share, are you? That seems a little unfair

Is'nt that the point of an evaluation ? "Hey, here is your test and here are the answers. You've got one hour" :)

[deleted]

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#126

Post by ruleabidinguser » Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

Xoros wrote: post #55

ruleabidinguser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not evaluating them based on requirements you didn't share, are you? That seems a little unfair

Is'nt that the point of an evaluation ? "Hey, here is your test and here are the answers. You've got one hour" :)

Not really no

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#127

Post by ge96 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:27 AM UTC

cpburns2009 wrote: post #119

ge96 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware. Are you talking like HTML5? Haven't used local storage before. Thanks for the info.

Yes, see Window.localStorage [1] and this short guide [2]. [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/loca... [2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Storage...

thanks for the references, I'd like to start using it at some point. Would be cool to check the client's device capabilities/run a specific event based on conditions met.

I finally used memcache(d) so that's cool.

Re: Why I hate your Single Page App

#128

Post by chiefalchemist » Sun, Sep 10, 2017, 12:10 AM UTC

Skinney wrote: post #121

chiefalchemist wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't the browser do this? I mean, it's a universal function / feature, right? And ultimately, it's the browsers that's waiting, not to application per se. (Yeah, I okay. But you know what I mean). I can't think of any good reason why the browsers can't help out with this UI / UX. Am I crazy?

Technically, in a SPA, the browser isn't waiting. Clicking the link just triggers a function call.

There has to be a wait somewhere. That is, the browser can't update anything until it knows what to do. So between the click and that new assignment is wait, yes?