[akiselev]

I think that's holding SPAs to a higher standard than server side rendering. To compare apples to apples, you'd have to compare to the real world SSR app - think the average corporate intranet django monolith. Sure it's easier on client side network and CPU resources but the same engineers that create SPA monstrosities are the ones that create SSR monstrosities.

[Albert_Camus]

I don't think it's holding SPAs to a higher standard. It's holding SPAs to a reasonable expectation for SPAs. An SPA is significantly more complicated on the client side in exchange for some purported benefits, especially to the user (such as only downloading what you need). If everything is discarded on each "page" transition and re-downloaded again upon a return, and has the page-popping-into-place effect, that eliminates one of the foremost benefits of an SPA and diminishes the UX.

I encourage anyone developing an SPA to go talk to actual end users about this. Most will report that they don't like the experience, often citing a variety of issues, but one of the biggest ones is related to the immediate page transitions followed by blank boxes or loading spinners for a perceptible amount of time. You'll hear comments like "it feels too fast" or "it feels like nothing is happening". These are not good things, and developers shouldn't be clutching their React/Angular/Vue/whatever framework just because it's what they know how to develop in, at the cost of producing products that users don't like as much as normal server side rendered applications.

[mauflows]

> such as only downloading what you need

I think SPAs provide great benefits, but most users only visit a single page. So I would add that SPAs also tend to download more than you need (in JS) if it's something like a blog