Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanderjd | Hacker News Reader

Maybe an unpopular opinion here: as a user of web applications, I very strongly prefer the "modern" javascript heavy SPA dominated culture of recent years. Every once in awhile I get annoyed by something that is just a webpage but thinks it's an application, but more often I have the reverse annoyance.

But as a developer, I agree that it is harder to develop these kinds of applications that I like than it used to be to develop multi page applications with mostly server side logic and only sprinkles of javascript.

I guess I just do, actually, think there is UX benefit to the complexity. But of course there are better and worse ways to accomplish it, figuring out that balance is the hard part.

View on HN

Can you expand on why you prefer the JS-heavy SPA style?

Because they are faster and easier to use. Using them is like using an application, rather than like using a website.

I think a good rule of thumb is: am I mostly clicking or mostly scrolling? If I'm mostly clicking - say, something like AirBnB or Zillow or Discord - where I'm exploring things and interacting a bunch, that feels better to me as a rich client-side application. If I'm mostly scrolling, like a blog or substack or a newspaper or even twitter, that feels better as a website.

I thought of a good concrete comparison: Vanguard vs. Coinbase Pro. Vanguard is a website, and it basically works for them because their business model is very passive, but you wouldn't want to do active trading there. Coinbase Pro is a web application where you can do lots of exploration and take actions quickly, and for me, it would be a major hindrance if they implemented it in a traditional page-based way.

If you want to use an application, then why don't you download and run an application? You will have a better experience running an application on desktop instead of running it on the browser.

Write once run anywhere. Nothing else comes close. A lot of web applications simply wouldn't exist on your platform if they were forced to be native applications.

Except now replace "platform" with browser, and you have the exact same dilemma as if we still made desktop applications.

It's sad how many "web apps" (and even more regular sites) only work in Chrome - try using Firefox or any non major browser, and quite a lot of the web simply doesn't work.

Hardly the same. Desktop applications are still much more time-consuming to make. The differences between desktop platforms is on another planet compared to the differences between browsers, especially the difference between Firefox and Chrome, especially when you consider mobile.

Because the web is a revolutionary application distribution platform. It is a better platform in every way except that some things that should be applications are still behaving like websites (and vice versa) and that it is harder for developers to target than native platforms. But as a user, I don't care at all whether it is harder for developers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com