Comment by lwouis

I think it seems logical on paper. I tried it, and it feels perceptually way worse. It also think it's objectively slower.

When you go from HTML page to HTML page without JS, the browser starts from scratch on every page. The user gets a big flash, then the browser has to redraw the page from scratch. It's actually a lot of work often.

If the browser expected pages to be similar, and added optimizations to reuse existing content, essentially doing internal SPA work, that would be a different story. To my knowledge, the browser does no such optimization, and brute-forces renders every URL from scratch.

You can actually try for yourself on the website I linked. Chrome devtools > disable Javascript. It's a pretty good experience still since I optimized everything. However, you see all sorts of things flicker and move around. It's not the smoothest experience. And If you have worse Internet, it gets worse and worse as you see more of the tear-down > built-up on every click. With the SPA experience, if you have bad internet, you can still scroll around and use the page, as you wait for the update to arrive.

Of course, you're totally right that static HTML works pretty good when the website is already simple and fast. My point was that with 4KB-uncompressed / 140LoC, I can get the smoothest experience. And I unlock options later on like having loading spinners for example.

My general point was that you can do simple client-side rendering in 140 LoC. You keep a simple backend-served website, and add a little polish this way to have a smooth experience.

I find it very cool to have polished app-like experience, while having a simple backend to serve. I like the low-tech, few moving pieces, yet I get options for great UX if I want.

I got charmed by this path with LiveView and Hotwire back in the day. I'm thankful that people continue to push this approach. It's wonderful