81–90 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their experience shouldn’t be much different on an SPA vs an MPA. If they can do an MPA round trip involving a medium-size image, then they should be able to load an SPA.
SPAs often require an uninterrupted internet connection even if it’s not technically necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny that you, and probably a lot of HN folk, consider MPA simpler than SPA. It's opposite in my experience. The name itself is actually telling you that it has more complexity (multi page vs single page). In practice, you can make both as complicated as you want, but SPA seems like a simpler starting point.
The earliest web apps I worked on were multi-page apps, with pages generated by Perl CGIs, later PHP. There was almost nothing going on on the client side except form submissions and a bit of JS-based form validation. I can tell you with 100% certainty this was simpler to build than most anything I see today with React SPAs and REST APIs. Even a simple form submission can be a PITA with modern tools.
SPA excel in complex interactions if you need only very simple forms it will be PITA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have never seen the resume-driven development? Lucky you, because it's the vast majority of development out there
Without a study of some sort, we’re just exchanging anecdotes. I’ve seen resume-driven development a handful of times in my 20-year career. You may be right, but we won’t know until we come up with some way to measure it. Most developers I’ve worked with have just been interested in solving problems.
The tech sector is riddled with such divisions of perspective. ”In a high-level language like C...” - chip designer ”In a low-level language like C...” - application programmer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their experience shouldn’t be much different on an SPA vs an MPA. If they can do an MPA round trip involving a medium-size image, then they should be able to load an SPA.
SPAs often require an uninterrupted internet connection even if it’s not technically necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you should strive for the simplest tool possible, and even further, you should strive to make solutions that require the simplest tools possible whenever you can. Why do you believe this? I couldn’t disagree more. People should strive for the most effective tool, and most of the time that’s what they already know, unless some new tools’ efficacy outweighs cost to learn it
It also depends on your definition of simple. The architectural model of Preact is simple. You change state, your application renders correctly. The architectural model of an MPA with interactivity sprinkled in seems as simple, but quickly becomes more complex over time, and has ultimately not been as simple in my experience.
MPA frameworks tend to present themselves as complete and batteries included. If you're using Rails, you can build a complete application without thinking about a single other library than what Rails ships with.
Neither approach is correct, but comparing them is like saying that HTML is so much simpler than C++ so everyone should use HTML.
Who said every site should work without JS, even Figma? Honestly, who is saying that? Who is saying these things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a study of some sort, we’re just exchanging anecdotes. I’ve seen resume-driven development a handful of times in my 20-year career. You may be right, but we won’t know until we come up with some way to measure it. Most developers I’ve worked with have just been interested in solving problems.
Physicists work on interesting problems. Developers work on profitable problems, mostly manufactured, for huge piles of money, from home, and with yoga over lunch.
I'm not planning on experiencing it either in the future. Though I'm sure some people like this kind of environment, and good for them.