Angular 2 Rendering Architecture

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M9FmT05Q6qpsjgvH1XvCm840yn2eWEg0PMskSQz7k4E/preview?sle=true#

by Bahamut • 11 years ago

74 18 11 years ago

docs.google.com

lobo_tuerto• 11 years ago

Says: You're offline.

skybrian• 11 years ago

Seems to work sometimes; try again.

bonif• 11 years ago

Here's a gist

https://gist.github.com/bonf/f0064e2779d9c8bc9e6d

aikah2• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

As 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• 11 years ago

Hi, total noob to rendering architectures here. What do you mean by "it's basically React"? I'd love to hear more.

trose• 11 years ago

It 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.

jhall14682• 11 years ago

I 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.

aikah2• 11 years ago

Your 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.

NicoJuicy• 11 years ago

Like 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 ;)

j4kp07• 11 years ago

I feel this needs to be said about most frameworks these days...by the time anyone agrees on anything, a new framework will come along and everyone will start praising it as the new holy grail.

I'm so glad I did not follow though with an Angular project about 2 years ago. It would have failed miserably and been difficult if not impossible to manage at this point.

volent• 11 years ago

What is your last point exactly? How a new version of Angular would have made your project fail so miserably?

Change is great, it makes awesome things happen. New frameworks are here to give you a choice, you don't have to use all of them. Angular2 will come with a lot of new features and Google said that they will keep working on Angular1 until most of the users switched, what's bad about that?

ericclemmons• 11 years ago

The fact is, there's always a new tool for the job a year or two down the road, but software needs building today.

I launched a major internal admin a year ago with Angular and it's largely on autopilot because Angular is so darn easy to work with when it comes to building new features, especially in the view layer.

SiVal• 11 years ago

I don't really understand what's going on in this client-side Web app space, and I'd love it if someone could clarify it.

My probably mistaken impression is that Facebook did this with React, decided that even with this virtual DOM, Web apps just weren't worth doing except as a backup to "real" native apps, and abandoned it.

Then Google decided that Angular was the way to do Web apps, discovered they were doing it wrong and that Facebook's virtual DOM was the way to go, and abandoned Angular 1's approach for an approach tried and abandoned by Facebook.

Then Google moved on to Polymer and its HTML components approach, which might be fundamental to Angular 2 or might be a new approach that they intend to use with something other than Angular.

Again, I'm obviously confused about what's going on in this big players' next-gen client-side web app space. Could anyone clarify?

masterj• 11 years ago

Facebook didn't abandon the virtual DOM approach with React Native, nor do they look at web as a second-class citizen. Rather React's approach could also be applied to native development, (wrapping the native stateful view hierarchy in a declarative model, which just happened to be in JavaScript) so that's what they did.

Angular is playing catch-up by adopting a similar rendering model. This will be to everyone's benefit.

Google is also pushing Polymer, but that's not really related to the other two.

vladgur• 11 years ago

Your timelines are off.

What youre referring to is that the early FB IOS app essentially wrapped a webview in order to display its stream, but the webview performance at the time was atrocious and they quickly abandoned it for natively build components. More recently(2013), post Instagram acquisition, Facebook developed a virtual dom framework named react and its currently used in several places of their web app.

Similarly with Angular which was introduced ~5 years ago, they decided that for the new rewrite it makes sense to use a virtual-dom like technology at the render level. The change is evolutionary.

FWIW Polymer is an effort by a completely different team and at this point is independent of Angular.

spankalee• 11 years ago

You're mistaking companies for monolithic hive minds with a single opinion and goal shared across all groups and employees.

Google did not "decide Angular was the way to do web apps". In fact relative few public-facing apps are built with Angular compared to other proprietary frameworks. Likewise, Google has not "moved on to Polymer", though most of those of us working on Chrome think Web Components are the way to go.

Angular 2 Rendering Architecture

Related Stories