I didn't personally notice much difference, but here are a few observations:
1) Using the React Chrome Extension, you can see the overall React component
tree is much bigger/deeper on the Reagent page, since the entire page is
composed of nested React components.
2) I also noticed this in comparing Om vs Reagent for my own top app: every
[:div] in Reagent appears to be a component (at least in the React Chrome
Extension tree), whereas that's not the case for each Om (dom/div) i.e.
Om:
<SomeComponent>
<div class="bob">
<li>....etc
Reagent:
<SomeComponent>
<:div.bob>
<div class="bob">
<:li>
<li>
I'm not sure if this is just an artifact of how the Chrome Extension renders
things, or if there are 2x as many components in a Reagent tree vs Om. If
there were, I would suppose that would penalize virtual DOM diffing in Reagent
ever so slightly.
On Monday, October 27, 2014 8:48:59 AM UTC-4, Michiel Borkent wrote:
> I just asked this in #clojurescript, but it might be interesting to discuss
> here.
>
> How come the Reagent Todo MVC example doesn't feel as snappy as the Om
> version,
> or the vanilla JS version for that matter. Om feels closer to the vanilla
> implementation.
>
> Compare these two
>
> http://holmsand.github.io/reagent/
>
> http://swannodette.github.io/todomvc/labs/architecture-examples/om/
>
> by adding a couple of items very quickly.
>
> Could it be the Reagent example was based on Reagent without batching with
> requestAnimationFrame?
> I can't find where the original sources for these pages are.
>
> Will the examples be hosted on the pages for "reagent-project"?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michiel
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
