Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31479 > unrolled thread

virtual DOM vs. regular DOM

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:54 -0700
    Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-09-30 20:58 +0200
      Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 04:23 -0700
        Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-10-01 13:57 +0200
          Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:25 -0700
            Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-10-01 21:43 +0200
              Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:29 -0700
                Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-10-01 23:39 +0200
                  Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 17:35 -0700
                    Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-10-02 09:23 +0200
                      Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 14:28 -0700
                        Re: virtual DOM vs. regular DOM "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-10-03 09:43 +0200

#31479 — virtual DOM vs. regular DOM

Could someone explain their difference?  thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31480

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 30 Sep 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Could someone explain their difference?  thanks.

[Please rather do not use the subjectline as part of the text.
The subject-line is for describing the subject at hand only.]

Well, it is realy very simple, it seems:

"The Virtual DOM is an abstraction of the HTML DOM. It is lightweight and 
detached from the browser-specific implementation details. Since the DOM 
itself was already an abstraction, the virtual DOM is, in fact, an 
abstraction of an abstraction."

Equivalent, well perhaps:

"Justaguy is an abstraction of a guy. It is lightweight and detached from a 
guy. Since 'a guy' itself was already an abstraction, Justaguy is, in fact, 
an abstraction of an abstraction."

Capiche?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31481

Got you, thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31482

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Got you, thanks.

Got who?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31485

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 7:57:37 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
> justaguy <liksdail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > Got you, thanks.
> 
> Got who?
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)


Got you = I see.  Now, what's the benefit of virtual DOM?
More higher level of JavaScript programming?
If so, could you offer a concrete case/sample to demonstrate its value?

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31486

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 7:57:37 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
>> justaguy <liksdail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>> 
>> > Got you, thanks.
>> 
>> Got who?

[please do not quote signatures. Signature removed]

> Got you = I see. 

That comparison is false.

You still do not answer what you mean, please quote.

> Now, what's the benefit of virtual DOM?

You presupose there is a benefit.
Maybe there is none, 
and benefit is a subjective measure.

> More higher level of JavaScript programming?

Even if that were true, why should that be [relatively?] beneficial?

> If so, could you offer a concrete case/sample to demonstrate its value?

If so what?

Do you think and can demonstrate that abstractions of abstractions are 
generally benificial?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31487

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
> justaguy <sewewewwkkss@gmail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 7:57:37 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
> >> justaguy <liksdail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in 
> >> comp.lang.javascript:
> >> 
> >> > Got you, thanks.
> >> 
> >> Got who?
> 
> [please do not quote signatures. Signature removed]
> 
> > Got you = I see. 
> 
> That comparison is false.
> 
> You still do not answer what you mean, please quote.
> 
> > Now, what's the benefit of virtual DOM?
> 
> You presupose there is a benefit.
> Maybe there is none, 
> and benefit is a subjective measure.
> 
> > More higher level of JavaScript programming?
> 
> Even if that were true, why should that be [relatively?] beneficial?
> 
> > If so, could you offer a concrete case/sample to demonstrate its value?
> 
> If so what?
> 
> Do you think and can demonstrate that abstractions of abstractions are 
> generally benificial?
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Ok, let's step back.  I came across the term "virtual DOM" from some "cool" JavaScript framework documentation, they claimed to to be superior because they use virtual DOM (vs. regular DOM).  And since they seem to be popular I thought they know what they are talking about...

Now, let's step back even further.  The current web trend seems "thick" client, that is, a lot of process are being done at the client (browser side) via fancy JavaScript programming and JS framework and / or library.
The goal is to improve user experience.  Do you agree?

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31488

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 01 Oct 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> Ok, let's step back.  I came across the term "virtual DOM" from some
> "cool" JavaScript framework documentation, they claimed to to be
> superior because they use virtual DOM (vs. regular DOM).  And since they
> seem to be popular I thought they know what they are talking about... 

Never, never argument your way on authority, even to yourself,
arguments need to be evidence based and logically consistent.

> Now, let's step back even further.  The current web trend seems "thick"
> client, that is, a lot of process are being done at the client (browser
> side) via fancy JavaScript programming and JS framework and / or
> library.

Is that so?
Not in my programming.

Serverside has the advantages of beter security, consistent quality without 
cross browser problems.

Clientside reduces server load, makes dynamic pages possible, has no 
transfer delays, unless you use xmlhttp extensively. And can accomodate 
ultra cheap servers.

Using libraries, unless they are your own, makes you lazy, 
gives inconsistent results on version updates, but mostly is less fun.

> The goal is to improve user experience.  Do you agree?
 
Not at all!

My goal is my amusement and satisfaction,
for some the money and the glory of being praised perhaps too.

But be my guest, set your own goals, as long as you do not define mine.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31489

I like your points of view.
Next question, i posted a question on re-writing bettet JavaScript code, could you comment on that? 
Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31490

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 02 Oct 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> I like your points of view.

Whose view?

"Dom" in Dutch means "dumb, stupid", not only virtually so.

> Next question, i posted a question on re-writing bettet JavaScript code,
> could you comment on that? Thanks.
> 



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31494

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:23:25 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
> justaguy <kkwewewewe@gmail.com> wrote on 02 Oct 2016 in
> comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
> > I like your points of view.
> 
> Whose view?
> 
> "Dom" in Dutch means "dumb, stupid", not only virtually so.
> 
> > Next question, i posted a question on re-writing bettet JavaScript code,
> > could you comment on that? Thanks.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Respectfully disagree.  For one thing, DOM (Document Object Model) provides a convenient way to allow dynamic creation/addition/insertion of new HTML elements should additional data entry requires it.  Without DOM, such additional data entry via HTML element(s) does not seem easily doable.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31495

justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> wrote on 02 Oct 2016 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:23:25 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
>> justaguy <kkwewewewe@gmail.com> wrote on 02 Oct 2016 in
>> comp.lang.javascript: 
>> 
>> > I like your points of view.
>> 
>> Whose view?
>> 
>> "Dom" in Dutch means "dumb, stupid", not only virtually so.
>> 
>> > Next question, i posted a question on re-writing bettet JavaScript
>> > code 
> ,
>> > could you comment on that? Thanks.
> 
> Respectfully disagree.

Disagree with what?

> For one thing, DOM (Document Object Model)
> provides a convenient way to allow dynamic creation/addition/insertion
> of new HTML elements should additional data entry requires it.  Without
> DOM, such additional data entry via HTML element(s) does not seem easily
> doable. 
>  
> 



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web