Having a server provide an island or rendering framework for your site can be more complex than an SPA with static assets and nginx.

You still have to deal with all the tooling you are talking about, right? You’ve just moved the goalpost to the BE.

And just like the specific use cases you mentioned for client routing I can also argue that many sites don’t care about SEO or first paint so those are non features.

So honestly I would argue for SPA over a server framework as it can dramatically reduce complexity. I think this is especially true when you must have an API because of multiple clients.

I think the DX is significantly better as well with fast reload where I don’t have to reload the page to see my changes.

People are jumping into nextjs because react is pushing it hard even tho it’s a worse product and questionable motives.

As somebody with an expert level knowledge with MVC frameworks like Ruby on Rails and Phoenix Framework, etc., and an experience building large-scale enterprise-grade apps using simpler technologies like jQuery, StimulusJS and plain old JavaScript on the front end with a little bit of React thrown in here and there, I found Development cycles to be much faster with these simpler stacks overall. The complexity of the code base never ended up turning to be a liability that it creates significant overhead and bottlenecks for new engineers joining the team to jump in and understand the end-to-end workflows of things.

Fast forward to what I am doing today in my new job. We have a pretty complex setup using Redwoodjs along with several layers of abstraction with Graphql (which I approve of) and a ton of packages and modules tied together on the front end with react, storybook, etc. and some things I am not even sure why they are there. I see new engineers joining our team and banging their heads to make even the smallest of changes and to implement new features and having to make code changes at multiple different places. I find myself doing similar things as well from time to time - and I always can't help but think about the complexity that I used to deal with when working with these MVC frameworks and how ridiculously easy it was to just throw logic in a controller and a service layer and and the view templates for the UI stuff. It all fit in so easily and shipping features was super simple and quick.

I wouldn't discount react as a framework but I am also starting to some cracks caused by using TypeScript on the backend. This entire Javascript world seems to be a mess you don't want to mess with. This is probably just me with an opinion, but but using Turbo, Stimulus and and sprinkles of LiveView got me really really far very quickly.

> Of course, Figma‑ or Gmail‑class apps still benefit from heavy client logic, so the emerging pattern is “HTML by default, JS only where it buys you something.” Think islands, not full SPAs.

Figma is written in C++ to webasm.

I don't know.

Many interactions are simply better delivered from the client. Heck some can only be exclusively delivered from the client (eg: image uploading, drag and drop, etc).

With HTMX, LiveViews, etc there will be challenges integrating server and client code... plus the mess of having multiple strategies handling different parts of the UI.

This is not my field, but my mental model was that server side mostly died when mobile apps started being mainstream, and treating the web app as another frontend for your common api was considered the best way to handle client diversity.

Was this not the case? And if so, what has fundamentally changed?

>Figma‑ or Gmail‑class apps.....

Figma is a definite yes. But Gmail is something we say from late 00s and somehow continue till now. I thought it has been proven we dont need SPA for Email Client. Hey is perfectly fine other than a little slow, mostly due to server response time and not Turbo / HTML / HTMX itself.

I still believe we have a long way to go and innovate on partial HTML swaps. We could have push this to the limit so that 98% of the web doesn't need SPA at all.

Really hopes Rails has more in store this year.

> Every line of client JS brings build tooling, npm audit noise, and another supply chain risk.

IME this is backwards. All that stuff is a one-off fixed cost, it's the same whether you have 10 lines of JS or 10,000. And sooner or later you're going to need those 10 lines of JS, and then you'll be better off if you'd written the whole thing in JS to start with rather than whatever other pieces of technology you're using in addition.

> they just need partial HTML swaps.

Been a web dev for over a decade, and I still use plain JS. I have somehow managed to avoid learning all the SPAs and hyped JS frameworks. I used HTMX for once project, but I prefer plain JS still.

I was a JQuery fan back in the day, but plain JS is nothing to scoff at these days. You are right though, in my experiences at least, I do not need anything I write to all happen on a single page, and I am typically just updating something a chunk at a time. A couple of event listeners and some async HTTP requests can accomplish more than I think a lot of people realize.

However, if I am being honest, I must admit one downfall. Any moderately complex logic or large project can mud-ball rather quickly -- one must be well organized and diligent.

People also forget just how far you can get without using client side JavaScript at all today. HTML and CSS have a lot of features built in that used to require JavaScript.

For me it definitely never went away, as I mostly done Java (JSP, JSF, Spring), or ASP.NET (Web Forms, MVC), with sprinkles of JavaScript islands.

And what makes me like Next.js, besides the SaaS SDKs that give me no other framework choice, it is being quite similar to those experiences.

I believe allowing the dynamic loading of scripts was a mistake, and we should undo support for it. So were iframes.

Everything after ready should have been static content.

This honestly feels so much closer to the old jQuery approach of using JS for enhancements but ensuring you could gracefully degrade to work without it.

I loved building things that way.

"Right-sizing" is probably the most diplomatic take on all tech churn. It's the right way to look at it. It's not that we're done with it once and for all, it's just it's not the end all be all that conferences/blogs/influencers make things out to be. It's more of an indictment of the zealotry behind tech evangelism.

I think the confession that "Figma‑ or Gmail‑class apps still benefit from heavy client logic" is a telling one, and the reason I politely disagree with your thinking is that it relies in the app staying small forever. But that's not what happens. Apps grow and grow and grow.

I've heard people say they just want "Pure JS" with no frameworks at all because frameworks are too complex, for their [currently] small app. So they get an app working, and all is good, right until it hits say 5000 lines of code. Then suddenly you have to re-write it all using a framework and TypeScript to do typing. Better to just start with an approach that scales to infinity, so you never run into the brick wall.

This is ChatGPT