Hacker News Reader

I mean SPAs and near-SPAs. "Web apps". Web sites as in mostly server-rendered sites with HTML, CSS, and some JS sugar on top could sub in for an awful lot of "web apps" and improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost.

[EDIT] incidentally I notice you keep arguing against things I've not actually written.

View on HN

It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. The bits about peacocking and resume-padding are... unconvincing.

> ...improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost.

I don't buy it at all. As mentioned, I've done both professionally and there are reasons I keep picking React (or a hybrid ala Next) that don't involve a bigger paycheck or "peacocking".

It's usually companies or management/product folks paying for their product to have the peacock feathers. See also: flat/material redesigns not to improve usability—in fact it may make it worse—but to avoid "looking old", not because users complained or metrics look bad but because someone with a budget guesses maybe they might. Similar with choices to make fairly simple sites into heavy SPAs with questionable performance.

> It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is.

I appreciate it. Seriously!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com