4 ms·
it's basically React, let's be honest here. Not that React invented anything but that Angular 2 clearly wants to use the exact same system it didn't use at firs
by aikah 12y ago
it's basically React, let's be honest here. Not that React invented anything but that Angular 2 clearly wants to use the exact same system it didn't use at first place.
- hrayr 12y agoAs a possible consumer of Angular 2 in the near future, if React got something right about rendering, I would hope they implement it in this framework. What does it matter what system they use, as long as it's efficient and fast.
- hoprocker 12y agoHi, total noob to rendering architectures here. What do you mean by "it's basically React"? I'd love to hear more.
- trose 12y agoIt uses a "Virtual DOM" such that it can calculate the most efficient way to modify the real DOM (which is generally very slow). For example, if you change the data model behind an ng-repeat right now, Angular deletes the old element from the DOM and writes a new one. Angular 2, and React, will figure out that just the internal information of the element changed and it will just change that bit.
- jhall1468 12y agoI like that you try to qualify it with "not that React invented it" while simultaneously using a condescending tone. Although props are in order for so effectively sounding condescending with only text. That said, it's only "basically React" in the sense that they both use a Virtual Dom. The implementation is unlikely to be as similar and the syntax is very different. Your analogy is flawed in the same way that calling Linux "basically BSD" (or vice versa) is wrong simply because they both use a Unix-like kernel.
- aikah 12y agoYour analogy is off. BSD always had a Unix-like kernel. AngularJS 1.x doesn't have a virtual DOM. They chose a different architecture for AngularJS 2.x which means the previous architecture wasn't that good despite all the praise.
- jhall1468 12y agoThey didn't "choose" a different architecture. The Virtual DOM wasn't an option when Angular 1.x started development. Dirty checking was "The Way". The previous architecture was excellent for its time. The initial release of Angular 1.x was 6 years ago. The praise was well-deserved because dirty checking was fast and efficient. React came about 4 years later and used an architecture that no one else had ever used. It was faster and more efficient. Now frameworks are converging to the new faster and more efficient way. It seems like you consider it a personal affront that Angular is changing with the times. You seem to forget that exchanging is what makes these frameworks great (CSSAnimationGroup is, in fact, a replica of ng-animate).
- NicoJuicy 12y agoLike any framework, it evolves... It takes the good things from something and integrates it in their own vision. Look at .Net which integrated CRUD apps (Ruby On Rails), "dumped" (not really dumped though, they keep it compatible) WebForms and moved to MVC, now you use MVC with tools like bower and Grunt (who would have thought about that). It's the same thing everywhere, so it is with React, Angular, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, ... People iterate (and meanwhile, they copy, improve and/or innovate stuff). The difference lies in how you are marketing it ;)