[zanellato19]

Yeah... This screams of people who never had bad networks. If you are going to add interactivity as a JIT thing, what happens when the user has a shitty connection? You give the impression that the page loaded to the user, but it didn't really load. This is just increasing by a lot the amount of connections the user will have to make. Its _more_ overhead with a bunch of http calls.

[mst]

The goal here, as I understand it, is to make sites that can be built using fully interactive tooling whose main purpose is to be read, so fast initial readability is paramount and the alternative to JIT interactivity would be a page transition so the network problem doesn't actually make anything worse.

It may not be the best possible set of trade-offs for any particular application but it seems like a set of trade-offs worth exploring.

[deckard1]

it's all to appease the Google black box. UX always takes a back seat to SEO. Because if there are no users, then no one to irritate with bad UX in the first place. If it weren't for SEO we would have all dropped SSR+hydration long ago. Absolutely no one likes unifying URLs and content and all that shit on two sides of a single app.