>It's a common misconception.

I think this makes it sound like I'm repeating something I've heard. It's my experience, not just some preconceived notion I have. I find it much easier to use something like Next.js, Remix, etc. (if we are comparing frameworks) than Astro for more dynamic web apps.

I would be very surprised to hear someone who prefers to build substantial dynamic SPA in Astro. But if that's you I'd love to hear more.

The reason I said that is because it's very easy for people to get the wrong idea that Astro is just one of those blog pre-rendering engines, because it strips JavaScript by default and has features like Collections API and built-in markdown rendering. But I'm also willing to argue that Astro is not any harder than Next.js or Remix, just takes a different approach (islands).

I actually did build a substantial dynamic SPA in Astro[0], and I would still choose Astro if I could start all over again, because just like other frameworks Astro has great support for data fetching, and also allows you to trivially have some parts of your application fully JavaScript-free, such as the login page where just the browser-native form is sufficient.

[0]: https://github.com/mayo-dayo/app

Very cool, thank you for sharing. I'll check it out.

I agree that it doesnt only do blogs and static sites. I found it to be harder to use for other cases but I'll poke around in that repo.