My position is like in other parts of life: don't see things white or black. Try to understand in each case if you need Binding or not. Even for things like PAYG, that we are promoting here, we should not apply it 100%. I think we always need to pass all this decisions on the pros and cons that we see and act consecuently to that analysis.
HTH Carlos El mar., 9 oct. 2018 a las 10:04, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected]>) escribió: > My main issue with binding is debugging it. Also, not all properties are > bindable, so you need to read the docs anyway to see if the prop is > bindable. You might as well spend the time to find the event that gets > thrown and listen to that. But I might use it occasionally when I’m lazy > and feeling lucky. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Alex Harui <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 10:44:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Binding vs. direct assignment > > IMO, the whole point of any framework is to trade-off size and performance > for the convenience of getting your app up and running faster. Any code > that is reconfigurable/reusable carries overhead in some way. We use PAYG > to reduce some of that overhead, but nothing will ever be as fast and small > as hand-tuned optimized code. Flex Helloworld was 128K. Royale Helloworld > has grown to 80K. It was 20K early on. Everyone can write a custom > HelloWorld in JS in much less than 1K. > > But generally, folks don't want to spend the time optimizing until too > late, hoping they can get up and running because there is enough speed and > performance in the network and runtimes. Most of the time there is enough > speed and performance. With Flex more apps ran into trouble With Royale > fewer will. > > There is no right answer. Use binding if you are in a hurry. Use direct > assignment if you have the time. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > PS: We need to look at the 80K in Helloworld some day and see how much we > can cut out. It was 50K recently IIRC. You can presume that almost all of > it is just-in-case instead of PAYG. > > On 10/9/18, 12:26 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > an application framework has to provide binding these days but I > sometimes > think that this binding thing is a bit overrated. > Even if it's convenience for the developer to just add some binding > expressions there are a lot of cases where we can just do a direct > assignment with one line of code. > > With Flex we've learned to use Binding carefully because of the > overhead. > > Thanks to Alex explanation [1] we've learned that the binding > implementation > in Royale is more lightweight than in Flex. > > However, I am just interested in your opinion about binding and > whether we > should apply the same recommendations for Royale as for Flex or if the > Royale implementation is lightweight enough to always use binding > without > any concerns. > > Thanks, > Olaf > > > > [1] > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2FRetrieving-a-collection-of-data-and-reassign-the-collection-to-show-in-a-component-with-Binding-tp6722p6735.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839&sdata=T6ato%2F6E0UzyHor992JwJ4qrZo7jvTON5vgTo%2BN93Oo%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Sent from: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6d19326e5c674d0449b208d62db8895e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636746667943432839&sdata=sHsjuIjb7VTzywlNBzCXj4wgvq2YxtwFVtMyvfoF5mk%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
