Re:New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
by millstone on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:37PM
(#6891704)
A lot of it is due to the limitations of HTML. For example, HTML is why Gmail paginates about as well as PHP app from 1998, instead of allowing you to just scroll through all of them like a native client.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
by nmjenkins on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:29PM
(#6891972)
Nonsense. FastMail's webmail allows you to scroll continuously through (or jump to any section of) your mailbox, even when they have 100,000+ messages in them. (Disclaimer: I work for FastMail). This is not an inherent limitation of the underlying technology, just one of implementation.
Re:New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
by dragonwriter on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:49PM
(#6892041)
> For example, HTML is why Gmail paginates about as well as PHP app from 1998, instead of allowing you to just scroll through all of them like a native client.
No, its not. HTML + JS, via AJAX, supports infinite scroll with a finite amount loaded at any given time. IIRC, Google has used that on Google Image Search and some other properties.
There may be web platform associated performance or other considerations behind pagination, but its not a fundamental can't-do limit of the technology.
Re:New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
by arthur_debert on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @10:33PM
(#6892640)
Pagination does have it's advantages, namely:
- Linking
- Easier to grok where you are in the result set ( 3 out of 5 instead of the scroll bar that changes height)
Re:New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
by randac on Thursday December 12, 2013 @04:34AM
(#6893620)
Yeah, it works great in search results, much easier to understand for the average user...
Page 1: 1-20 of about 26... cool not too many to scan through
Page 2: 21-40 of about 46... oh
Page 3: 41-60 of about 67... errr
Page 4: 61-80 of about 87... seriously?