PushState Polyfills vs Server-Side 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 server-side routing for applications that require seo optimization, fast initial page loads, or when working with legacy systems. 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

Server-Side Routing

Developers should use server-side routing for applications that require SEO optimization, fast initial page loads, or when working with legacy systems

Pros

• It's ideal for content-heavy websites like blogs, e-commerce platforms, and news sites where search engine visibility is critical
• Related to: express-js, django

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. PushState Polyfills is a library while Server-Side 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 Server-Side Routing excels in its own space.