How does x:Bind compare with the classical Binding, put as concisely as possible?

Question

How is the compiled binding, x:Bind, different from the classical Binding, put as concisely as possible?

Answer 1

• Compared with the classical binding you cannot use the following binding attributes with x:Bind: ElementName, RelativeSource, Source and UpdateSourceTrigger. Well, that almost sums up the limitations of x:Bind but x:Bind is powerful in its own right -- the notable one being compiled binding and hence the performance gain as a result. See last bullet point for another powerful thing in x:Bind's armory.

• One important point to always remember: the data context of x:Bind is the code-behind class. To steer x:Bind to a ViewModel class, just prefix with the ViewModel object reference for page DataContext.

• Another point to remember is that the default binding Mode is OneTime while OneWay and TwoWay modes are also available. If a binding doesn't appear to be working, perhaps the binding is in default mode and past the OneTime trigger. To avoid such mishaps, define the binding Mode explicitly.

• My favorite -- binding for events using x:Bind -- now you can easily implement event-to-method pattern. In XAML, forget the Tapped="MyTapHandlerInCodeBehind" code and start using the x:Bind variant Tapped="{x:Bind ViewModel.MyTapHandlerInViewModel}". One minor downside though is you cannot pass Parameter as with the classical event handler, but this is not common use case and an alternative exists.

Answer 2

The classic binding uses reflection to get the properties values to bind. X:Bind creates a class at compile time for getting the values so the binding will be quicker