> Are we, in fact, if we're being honest?

Obviously, yes.

> I haven't seen anything like that. 99.9% of applications I interact with are just simple CRUD apps.

Irrelevant. Being CRUD is completely orthogonal to whether the WebApps are interactive or not.

Look at Gmail. You can hand wave over it and claim it's a CRUD app. However, no one in their right mind would try to deny the app is a "highly interactive, component-based, state-driven, design-system-heavy applications".

Also, it's silly to pretend that SPA-type apps are only justified if you check each box in the buzzword bingo card. One of the primary selling points of designing SPA or non-static lage, SPA-like WebApps is performance. Meaning, you are able to put together a highly performant web page if you do not require full page reloads each time anyone clicks on something, if you can easily implement optimistic logic in components, and if you can update only a subset of components when you receive a response from a request.

I recommend discovering the concept of perceived performance and afterwards you read through common patterns and strategies to optimize perceived performance. After you do that, go through a though experiment where you start off with an old timey dynamic HTML/server-side rendered WebApp and consider the challenge of achieving the same type of improvements in user experience, or even doing the same tricks. You'll quickly arrive at the same conclusions at the whole world around you already arrived at.

▲

donatj 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Explain what about Gmail is "highly interactive" because I'm genuinely not seeing it. You receive like an email a minute? There's a Web 1.0 form for sending emails. Where's this "high levels of interactivity"? It's a form and a list of emails that updates occasionally.

It's literally basic web 2.0 junk from the early 2000s, the UI has barely changed since it launched.

▲

xnx 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Shortcut keys, auto-complete, custom-GUI elements for which no comparable standard element exists, drag and drop, image insertion/resizing, rich text formatting, auto-updates for new items, etc.

It's possible to make a web 1.0 HTML email client but GMail is much much better. It's the difference between 1998 MapQuest and Google Maps.

	▲	DanielHB 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		There used to be a basic HTML version of gmail but it seems it just redirects you to normal gmail now. No one in their right mind who does a lot of emailing would use it compared to the normal one besides for ideological reasons.

▲

motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Explain what about Gmail is "highly interactive" because I'm genuinely not seeing it.

That's perfectly fine. If you can't see it, you can't see it. You need to know what to look for to see it, though. If you're oblivious to web development then every page is just a page.

> You receive like an email a minute?

Irrelevant. The range of operations that Gmail supports and falls within the lazy classification of CRUD operations goed way beyond sending and receiving emails. For example, see gmail's support for tagging, email classification, multiple types of inboxes, etc.

> It's literally basic web 2.0 junk from the early 2000s (...)

Tell me you're completely clueless about web development and WebApps in general without actually saying it. Just keep in mind that you also have the option of not commenting on things you're oblivious about.

▲

Alejandro9R 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, he's completely clueless and has been commenting like he knows what he is talking about. Or is rage baiting on purpose. Sometimes its impressive the lengths people can go. Nonetheless, I've seen so many people on Hacker News beg for "simple websites" and that they are just "CRUD apps that don't need complexity" while completely dismissing what you've pointed out in the previous comment.

Of course, there are webs which are developed with the worst practices and bloated to oblivion. But even the best websites with the greatest UI/UX and perceived performance will have at least some complexity to it to give that experience to the end user. UX and simplicity done right is really a craft that mixes creativity, human psychology and technical skill.

	▲	skydhash 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve seen the general public using those “improved” UI and UX and at best not giving a damn. At worst, they are very annoyed when things are hidden or jumping all over the place. A linear form with help messages is better than any gimmicky design one can think of.

▲

ndriscoll 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My memory is getting hazy, but wasn't Gmail originally just (something like) the simple HTML version, and it supported tags and classification from the beginning? Like I'm pretty sure I had filters to tag and skip inbox for newegg emails circa 2005 so I could have a separate "inbox" for them. Likewise for some mailing lists I was part of.

	▲	Zanfa 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was. And it was glorious. Fast and snappy, loaded instantly and felt responsive. Then they did the full SPA redesign…

▲

robertlagrant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Tell me you're completely clueless about web development and WebApps in general without actually saying it. Just keep in mind that you also have the option of not commenting on things you're oblivious about.

Petty sniping is not welcome.

▲

ksec 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is Hey a WebApp or CRUD app ( with added interactivity )?

When people say CRUD App, I assume they mean web page + sprinkle of JavaScripts.

▲

timw4mail 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And yet 90+% of those SPA-apps have worse performance.

	▲	rcxdude 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This. I fully get the in-theory argument that a thick SPA can make for a smoother experience, but that just makes it all the worse that all but the most exceptional SPAs are significantly worse in terms of responsiveness than a series of server-side rendered pages. (even gmail, which is pretty good they go, is laggy and can easy eat up 1GB of RAM)
	▲	tracker1 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The fact that people will copy/pasta from stack exchange, or add in massive packages from npm that do things other packages in other areas already do doesn't mean it has to be that way. A dresser can be hand crafted from solid oak and built to last centuries, or it can be flat-pack barely better than cardboard with fake plastic oak veneer. You can make a fully functional SPA with less than 1mb of payload, or you can create the hot garbage that is Jack In The Box's menu website, that delivers 48mb of insanely bloated JS garbage. And I only harp on them because it's the single worst SPA example I've seen to date. For that matter, I think with some nice tooling HTMX can be a pretty great experience for most in-between usage.