Hash-Based Routing vs PushState Polyfills

Developers should use hash-based routing when building SPAs that need to support deep linking and browser history without server-side configuration, as it relies solely on client-side JavaScript and doesn't require server support for routing meets developers should use pushstate polyfills when building spas that require client-side routing and need to support older browsers like internet explorer 9 or earlier, which lack native history api support. Here's our take.

Hash-Based Routing

Nice Pick

Developers should use hash-based routing when building SPAs that need to support deep linking and browser history without server-side configuration, as it relies solely on client-side JavaScript and doesn't require server support for routing

Pros

• It's ideal for applications hosted on static file servers or CDNs where server-side routing isn't feasible, such as in GitHub Pages or simple web apps
• Related to: single-page-applications, javascript-routing

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

PushState Polyfills

Developers should use pushState polyfills when building SPAs that require client-side routing and need to support older browsers like Internet Explorer 9 or earlier, which lack native History API support

Pros

• This is crucial for ensuring a seamless user experience with bookmarkable URLs and proper back/forward navigation in legacy environments, such as enterprise applications or websites with a diverse user base
• Related to: html5-history-api, single-page-applications

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Hash-Based Routing is a concept while PushState Polyfills is a library. We picked Hash-Based Routing based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Hash-Based Routing wins

Based on overall popularity. Hash-Based Routing is more widely used, but PushState Polyfills excels in its own space.