dwelle
As for me, I was taking UX into foremost consideration, too. Spa as way better UX than non-spa — unless for edge cases.
July 27th, 2019
Replying to
Your main concern should be user needs—not your own.
When I talk about over-engineering, I’m speaking from the perspective of end users, not developers.
Before considering your ease of use, and maintainability, consider users first.
Responses
Andy Bell
That’s a bold statement. Not sure I agree at all. You obviously are working on the assumed context that the user has a fast connection to efficiently download the initial, large JavaScript payload and a device with enough CPU to process it. And of course, no runtime errors.
dwelle
Yes. I’m not sure what the point of contention is here, though. In your prev tweets you’ve already said that PE is ok. Are you differentiating PE spas from spas generated by e.g. Gatsby etc.?
Andy Bell
There’s a point with server-rendered React and Vue (to a point) where the entire static output of HTML is fully hydrated. This is what is incredibly expensive and if something goes wrong (it will), the page will be left blank. All of that for no-reloads seems risky to me.
dwelle
Even if true (hydration is non-optional), it still seems your worry is not of UX/perf, but rather that since JS is way more complex than HTML we should abandon it.
# Liked by Andy Bell on Saturday, July 27th, 2019 at 5:46pm
# Liked by Šime Vidas on Saturday, July 27th, 2019 at 6:15pm