Re: [WICG/webcomponents] Template/part proposals should explain how and why they improve performance (#901)

Couple thoughts:

* Not all engines have equal binding layer cost, so that would have to be quantified somehow.
* Similarly, if you don't register mutation event listeners, there's essentially no cost in Gecko if I remember correctly.
* There is indeed no "replace contents" for ranges and that might be an interesting operation. Defining this will be quite tricky however as this is essentially a novel tree operation that we do not yet have. So saying "parts" makes it straightforward is a bit disingenuous as it will be quite a lot of work to get that right, including defining the interaction with mutation observers and such.
* It's interesting that frameworks essentially wrap setters, but I don't see how parts helps with that as parts is about elements and attributes, not setters.
* I do think there is some merit to the argument that providing a recommended pattern for tree mutations will help (I also like that about `DOMChangeList`), though it remains to be seen how that works in practice as developers might not considering running the `href` setter or some such to be a tree mutation.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/901#issuecomment-742418625