Don't you have the same problems with basic CRUD apps? Also you need to handle the sad path for every single request instead of having the sync engine do it all in one place.

▲

Escapado 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Correct but the feedback is usually more immediate. Save a change to your issue and it fails - You will get an error toast and probably stay on the form.

In the local first world you might have navigated away already and created 3 more issues of which 2 more failed because of schema drift or other conflicts. And you might have edited one that was deleted. And now you need to figure out what exactly to tell the user - or what not to tell them.

	▲	jack_pp 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well the sync engine can figure out if there's an issue fast, say <500ms, if you build it that way. Then you can just make a toast telling the user there are issues and anything they do will be saved locally only for the time being. Warn the user that if they leave the website their changes won't be saved remotely.
	▲	artman 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In reality conflicts almost never happen.

▲

hamandcheese 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issue that I foresee is that the point of error becomes decoupled from the UI and the UI doesn't handle a delayed error. Especially if retrofit into existing products.

▲

michaelchisari 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The complexity required of a basic CRUD app versus a client-side optimistic update are worlds apart.

Exhaust all other optimizations before lying to your users about what just happened.