3 ms·
>Changing it to 1 way binding resolved the rendering time and made it on par with the other 2, You have to explicitly enable 2 way data binding in Angular 2.x
by jordache 9y ago
>Changing it to 1 way binding resolved the rendering time and made it on par with the other 2,
You have to explicitly enable 2 way data binding in Angular 2.x +. Angular 2.x+ is 1 way data binding by default. This is a key differentiation between AngularJS 1.x and Angular 2.x+
The fact that you imply you had 2 way data binding initially means you were using angularJS 1.x (not Angular 2.x +) Or if the latter, you had some very poor design decisions to settle on a 2 way data binding solution. Vue and React both are by default 1 way data binding.
- philliphaydon 9y ago/facepalm I WANT 2 way binding so I could achieve what I wanted to achieve. The only way to get the performance out of angular 2 was to NOT use 2 way binding and hack it together. Vue / React examples didn't suffer from 8 seconds of render time using 2 way binding on a large number of elements. You can sit and defend angular 2 all you want, doesn't change the fact it's terrible. Let's not even get into the angular api 2 changing after they said it wouldn't. And regressions of the angular cli, and breaking changes on minor updates.
- jordache 9y agoall performan comparisons out there have the three frameworks neck and neck. Your anecdote is certainly interesting in terms of the diffference in performance. I would chalk it up as poor implementation / understanding of angular, rather than some special edge case that tested the limitation of angular