PushState Polyfills vs Hash-Based Routing

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 meets 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. Here's our take.

PushState Polyfills

Nice Pick

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

Hash-Based Routing

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

The Verdict

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

The Bottom Line

PushState Polyfills wins

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