@dan_abramov There are use cases for single-page apps, but they're SUPER overused today. And they're worse – buggy, slow, and finnicky.
-
-
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov Browsers are really good—and, most importantly, FAST—at rendering HTML. You lose a lot with SPAs on the web.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@feross SPA doesn’t mean there is no HTML. You can render on the server and boot up from that on client once JS is loaded.1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov If you're serving wikipedia, why do that? Why introduce all that complexity and tooling? That's the point I'm making.7 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@feross If there was no complexity cost, SPA would have been a better choice because UX would be faster and data usage would be less.3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov
@dan_abramov Data usage is not less on the initial page load when you're forcing me to download 200KB of frameworks.3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @feross
@feross@dan_abramov I wish my JS build(s) were only 200kb
The first step is admitting that we have a problem
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes
@erikthedev_ @feross @dan_abramov I've got spa functional client apps down to 11kb post gzip
https://github.com/yoshuawuyts/playground-virtual-app/blob/master/index.js … - death to big sites!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.