3 ms·
That doesn't sound like a definition of progressive rendering I've heard before http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/11/the-lost-art-of-progressive-html-render
by jaffathecake 13y ago
That doesn't sound like a definition of progressive rendering I've heard before http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/11/the-lost-art-of-progressive-html-rendering.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/11/the-lost-art-of-pro...
- dasil003 13y agoRead and learn young grasshopper: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389414033919 https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389414033919
- kalms 13y agoOkay, I got to admit: That was awesome. Well thought out.
- jaffathecake 13y agoGood article, but that's not the definition of progressive rendering
- dasil003 13y agoWhat's the precise definition? The browser rendering partial HTML as it is streamed down? That is just built-in browser technology to achieve the same goal. There's no meaningful distinction in terms of the end result.
- jaffathecake 13y agoActually, I misread your earlier post. Yes, what Facebook does is progressive rendering, but I disagree that it's the ideal since it's still blocked by JS. The ideal is serving HTML from the server which can get content on the screen before JS downloads. "That is just built-in browser technology to achieve the same goal" - exactly. Tweetdeck does progressive rendering, but it avoids the simplest way of doing it and instead reinvents the technique with JavaScript. You can see what this does to performance.
- dasil003 13y agoThe point is that the perceived performance of Facebook is impossible to achieve with server-side rendering. Whether they should optimize for that 99.99% or the other 0.01% on philosophical grounds is a point you are free to debate. However the facts are the facts.