What some folks are missing is that SPAs are great for web applications & unsuitable for web pages. There is more nuance than âSPA badâ.
Then dealing with a lot of dynamic content, piping thru a virtual DOM DSL is 100Ă nicer for a developer than having to manually manipulate the DOM or hand write XML where itâs easy to forget all the closing tags (XML is better as a interchange format IMO & amazing when you need extensibility⊠also JSX just makes it worse). That developer experience (DX) often can lead to faster iteration & less bugs even with a cost to the user experience (UX). But itâs not always a negative impact to the UXâSPAs can be used to keep things like a video or music player on while still browser & using the URL bar as a state reference to easy send links to others or remember your own state.
Itâs equally silly that a landing page whose primary purpose is to inform users of content takes 40s to load & shows âThis applications requires JavaScriptâ to the TUI browser users & web crawlers/search indexers that donât have the scale of Google to be executing JavaScript in headless browser just to see what a site has to say.
The trick is knowing how & when to draw these lines as thereâs even a spectrum within the two extremes for progressive enhancement. React isnât the solution to everything. Neither is static sites. Nor HTMX. Nor LiveView. Nor Next/Nuxt/NĂĄxt/NĂŒxt/NĆxt/Nàžxt.
I admitted it was a spectrum, but this recent article in particular does a good job explaining the axes of static vs. dynamic : online vs. offline. I think you will appreciate it. :)
I donât agree with this hard split between SPAs and MPAs anymore (ie. SPAs for apps, MPAs for websites/content). In my opinion SPAs are simply a progressive enhancement for MPAs which allow even faster page navigation. All frameworks now come with SSR solutions and if a website still requires JS to show content thatâs a skill issue.
Looking at Astro the line between SPA/MPA is getting really blurry. Just slap a View Transition element on your page and you got a MPA which acts like a SPA when JS is enabled.
In my opinion SPAs are simply a progressive enhancement for MPAs which allow even faster page navigation.
While I agree that there is a spectrum (hinting at that with the last paragraph), this is where I hard disagree. To construct something like this, you are making an application massively complex by trying to re-implement everything on both ends. Using something like Astro is only hiding that complexity but itâs still there, & probably full of bugs & tons of JavaScript that most developers wouldnât even understand their stack or know how to jump into the Astro code. The amount of time saved is largely minuscule in most cases with the assets cached when navigating to a new page. In fact, I just tested two of their showcased sites which loaded slower with JavaScript enabled & the content was pretty obviously 95% static. Thereâs probably some niche use cases for this, but itâs not a good default IMO.
Sure, but I donât want to. SPAs are nice, but I also try to include a JS-free fallback solution that is loaded when the client doesnât support Javascript. I think this is the best approach to web development. A good example for this is LocalMoneroâs No-JS mode. You can use the toggle in the upper-left corner to disable all Javascript on the website, and it will still have most features. I love it.
Building âapplicationsâ out of HTML documents â a single one or otherwise â is the sort of thing that belongs in one of those âstop doing Xâ memes, unironically.
No. Users should be forced to install hundreds of apps, with two thirds of apps running simultaneously. And if they donât have memory left on the device for that, they should uninstall apps and reinstall them when necessary.
Loyalists were definitely a thing then. Also called Tories, Royalists, or Kingâs Men.
Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, and in return, the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected.
Came here to say this, so thank you for the coverage. Also interesting, I mean, arenât crown loyal people still called Tories or some such? Forgive my ignorance, Iâm West Atlantic (omg, I just made that up to say American, and I think Iâm sticking with it.)
âIt may just be my poor, West Atlantic education, butâŠâ
In the UK we still use Tories as a nickname for the conservative party, one of the two main parties in our political system and a kind of pound store republican party. They do indeed still feign royalism when it suits their purposes, some things never change.
That still sounds accurate to the modus operandi of what Iâm used to from a Conservative Party.
Though it infuriates me that a party can literally call themselves and be regularly referred to as âThe thieves who want to eat your baby!â, by EVEN THEIR SUPPORTERS, and still not only be considered a viable party, but have more or less become the majority party of their countryâŠ
Itâs got real âThey call themselves Decepticons and you thought theyâd honor a deal?â energy
I mean, in Norway we have the Pirate Party (thatâs their official name) and they seem like an alright bunch. Itâs a political party trying to champion online privacy.
Tories nowadays is typically used to describe a party which supports the establishment the most. So in the United Kingdomâs the Tories typically support the Crown the most. In Commonwealth countries the Tories are usually synonymous with right-wing parties who are typically the most nationalist. However in many Commonwealth countries the right-wing is often more left leaning than the American left. This is of course trying to describe a wide array of political beliefs in broad strokes so I may be accurate but Iâm sure as hell not precise.
I third that. Videos are so incredible inaccessible. Want an easy-to-follow tutorial or heck a searchable document? nah mate video is all you get, and ads with it!
No images is because they want it to work in a plaintext environment.
No tables because you just know someone is going to use it to format stuff that isnât tabular data, though I guess there isnât a way to actually render tabular data eitherâŠ
Mhm I disagree with your second point. Since you canât use any styling on Gemini objects, you wonât get table layout as we had in dark ages of Html. With tables like in Markdown you can just lay out tabular data in an actual table.
Mhm I guess with the plaintext environment we still can link to external resources like images and other multimedia or interactives.
You do get searchable auto-transcripts of videos now, so thatâs a good thing. Some people work better with videos and find them more accessible. Best of both worlds. As long as they are not auto-playing and pre-caching, Iâm fine with them existing.
lemmy.ml
Active