This is the pattern I go with: https://gist.github.com/2931439
It decouples a little more logic from the template, and I think it adheres very closely with some things Backbone expects (like passing through the entire el to the DOM).
It decouples a little more logic from the template, and I think it adheres very closely with some things Backbone expects (like passing through the entire el to the DOM).
I'm curious - where did you hear that it was better performance? Or is this personal experience?
Found this S.O thread http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10296791/backbone-js-perf... (different code, same concept) and decided to benchmark: Unqueued DOM insertion: http://jsfiddle.net/arkxp/9/ Queued DOM insertion: http://jsfiddle.net/arkxp/8/
The latter is consistently faster, and while the difference isn't a lot with this example, given a more complex insertion it'll mount up.
There's at least two projects I have going at the day job which have been experiencing slowdown - and I had no idea that small-batch DOM interaction was the culprit.
Looks like I've got some optimizin' to do.
I know that sounds strange, but CoffeeScript taught me important concepts in JS which I just couldn't grasp beforehand. Prototypal inheritance, scoping, object construction, and use, etc.
I'm a pretty big advocate at this point. Contrary to what a lot of its detractors say, CoffeeScript insinuated in my mind most of the JS best practices. Going back to JS from CoffeeScript, I found JS just as easy to correctly write and use as CoffeeScript had ever been.
How about that?