You probably don't need a single-page app

Re:You probably don't need a single-page app by sirsuki on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:11PM (#19187237)

Is there any possibility that the added complexity is a symptom of the framework in use and not a general problem with ALL frameworks? I know I've experienced many projects and found server side rendering more complex then client side when using frameworks like Ember.js.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You probably don't need a single-page app by andrewfong on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:11PM (#19187496)

I'm a front-end engineer, but I'd agree that SPAs are always more complicated than a pure SSR solution: You're inherently doing more. You're probably already tracking state somewhere on the backend (e.g. in a database). An SPA means you now have to track state on the front-end too.

There are benefits and things you can do with an SPA that you can't do with pure SSR, but they _do_ come at a cost. TANSTAAFL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You probably don't need a single-page app by collinmanderson on Monday February 18, 2019 @01:53PM (#19193161)

TANSTAAFL stands for: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

But I agree, that seems to be my impression. Single Page Apps allow higher quality User Interfaces (if done right), though they do require more work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You probably don't need a single-page app by Touche on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:59PM (#19187444)

It's a symptom of the SPA architecture. Since you give up a lot of basic functionality by not using multiple pages, that same functionality has to be reinvented.

[ Parent | on HN ]