The bad part of a single-page app is that some developer had to reinvent a bunch of what the browser does already. The good part is I, a hacker, get a free API that I can use for my own purposes.


@edwardloveall What are your thoughts about the UX improvements that rich JS apps have over server-rendered apps with JS sprinkles?

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@CodingItWrong I think most server-rendered+JS sprinkles apps have better UX than rich JS apps. JS apps _could_ improve the UX (and a few do) but the effort required is massive. Devs have to replace so much of the browser: system conventions, accessibility, history state management, error handling, etc.

@edwardloveall This is a common view in the Rails world, and I think the market shows just how little adopted that view is in the broader software world. I don't share your view on this. If you really believe it, my best recommendation would be to try to deeply understand what it is that devs and users find better about rich frontend apps, and not dismiss that view.

@CodingItWrong Yeah that's cool 👍️ To each their own 🙂

I've made rich JS apps and SRP only apps and most things in between. I've arrived at this because, while there are nice things about making a rich JS app (JS at all/most layers, smooth page transitions, a potentially more integrated UX, huge ecosystem for support) the downsides always outweigh the upsides.

Even with all that rich JS can be the right choice. But I also see so many CRUD apps where people reached for JS for no benefit.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!