AngularJS remembers the value and compares it to a previous value. This is basic dirty-checking. If there is a change in value, then it fires the change event.

The $apply() method, which is what you call when you are transitioning from a non-AngularJS world into an AngularJS world, calls $digest(). A digest is just plain old dirty-checking. It works on all browsers and is totally predictable.

To contrast dirty-checking (AngularJS) vs change listeners (KnockoutJS and Backbone.js): While dirty-checking may seem simple, and even inefficient (I will address that later), it turns out that it is semantically correct all the time, while change listeners have lots of weird corner cases and need things like dependency tracking to make it more semantically correct. KnockoutJS dependency tracking is a clever feature for a problem which AngularJS does not have.

Issues with change listeners:

• The syntax is atrocious, since browsers do not support it natively. Yes, there are proxies, but they are not semantically correct in all cases, and of course there are no proxies on old browsers. The bottom line is that dirty-checking allows you to do POJO, whereas KnockoutJS and Backbone.js force you to inherit from their classes, and access your data through accessors.
• Change coalescence. Suppose you have an array of items. Say you want to add items into an array, as you are looping to add, each time you add you are firing events on change, which is rendering the UI. This is very bad for performance. What you want is to update the UI only once, at the end. The change events are too fine-grained.
• Change listeners fire immediately on a setter, which is a problem, since the change listener can further change data, which fires more change events. This is bad since on your stack you may have several change events happening at once. Suppose you have two arrays which need to be kept in sync for whatever reason. You can only add to one or the other, but each time you add you fire a change event, which now has an inconsistent view of the world. This is a very similar problem to thread locking, which JavaScript avoids since each callback executes exclusively and to completion. Change events break this since setters can have far-reaching consequences which are not intended and non obvious, which creates the thread problem all over again. It turns out that what you want to do is to delay the listener execution, and guarantee, that only one listener runs at a time, hence any code is free to change data, and it knows that no other code runs while it is doing so.

What about performance?

So it may seem that we are slow, since dirty-checking is inefficient. This is where we need to look at real numbers rather than just have theoretical arguments, but first let's define some constraints.

Humans are:

• Slow — Anything faster than 50 ms is imperceptible to humans and thus can be considered as "instant".

• Limited — You can't really show more than about 2000 pieces of information to a human on a single page. Anything more than that is really bad UI, and humans can't process this anyway.

So the real question is this: How many comparisons can you do on a browser in 50 ms? This is a hard question to answer as many factors come into play, but here is a test case: http://jsperf.com/angularjs-digest/6 which creates 10,000 watchers. On a modern browser this takes just under 6 ms. On Internet Explorer 8 it takes about 40 ms. As you can see, this is not an issue even on slow browsers these days. There is a caveat: The comparisons need to be simple to fit into the time limit... Unfortunately it is way too easy to add a slow comparison into AngularJS, so it is easy to build slow applications when you don't know what you are doing. But we hope to have an answer by providing an instrumentation module, which would show you which are the slow comparisons.

It turns out that video games and GPUs use the dirty-checking approach, specifically because it is consistent. As long as they get over the monitor refresh rate (typically 50-60 Hz, or every 16.6-20 ms), any performance over that is a waste, so you're better off drawing more stuff, than getting FPS higher.

"How does this and $scope work in AngularJS controllers?"

Short answer:

• this
  • When the controller constructor function is called, this is the controller.
  • When a function defined on a $scope object is called, this is the "scope in effect when the function was called". This may (or may not!) be the $scope that the function is defined on. So, inside the function, this and $scope may not be the same.
• $scope
  • Every controller has an associated $scope object.
  • A controller (constructor) function is responsible for setting model properties and functions/behaviour on its associated $scope.
  • Only methods defined on this $scope object (and parent scope objects, if prototypical inheritance is in play) are accessible from the HTML/view. E.g., from ng-click, filters, etc.

Long answer:

A controller function is a JavaScript constructor function. When the constructor function executes (e.g., when a view loads), this (i.e., the "function context") is set to the controller object. So in the "tabs" controller constructor function, when the addPane function is created

this.addPane = function(pane) { ... }

it is created on the controller object, not on $scope. Views cannot see the addPane function -- they only have access to functions defined on $scope. In other words, in the HTML, this won't work:

<a ng-click="addPane(newPane)">won't work</a>

After the "tabs" controller constructor function executes, we have the following:

The dashed black line indicates prototypal inheritance -- an isolate scope prototypically inherits from Scope. (It does not prototypically inherit from the scope in effect where the directive was encountered in the HTML.)

Now, the pane directive's link function wants to communicate with the tabs directive (which really means it needs to affect the tabs isolate $scope in some way). Events could be used, but another mechanism is to have the pane directive require the tabs controller. (There appears to be no mechanism for the pane directive to require the tabs $scope.)

So, this begs the question: if we only have access to the tabs controller, how do we get access to the tabs isolate $scope (which is what we really want)?

Well, the red dotted line is the answer. The addPane() function's "scope" (I'm referring to JavaScript's function scope/closures here) gives the function access to the tabs isolate $scope. I.e., addPane() has access to the "tabs IsolateScope" in the diagram above because of a closure that was created when addPane() was defined. (If we instead defined addPane() on the tabs $scope object, the pane directive would not have access to this function, and hence it would have no way to communicate with the tabs $scope.)

To answer the other part of your question: how does $scope work in controllers?:

Within functions defined on $scope, this is set to "the $scope in effect where/when the function was called". Suppose we have the following HTML:

<div ng-controller="ParentCtrl">
   <a ng-click="logThisAndScope()">log "this" and $scope</a> - parent scope
   <div ng-controller="ChildCtrl">
      <a ng-click="logThisAndScope()">log "this" and $scope</a> - child scope
   </div>
</div>

And the ParentCtrl (Solely) has

$scope.logThisAndScope = function() {
    console.log(this, $scope)
}

Clicking the first link will show that this and $scope are the same, since "the scope in effect when the function was called" is the scope associated with the ParentCtrl.

Clicking the second link will reveal this and $scope are not the same, since "the scope in effect when the function was called" is the scope associated with the ChildCtrl. So here, this is set to ChildCtrl's $scope. Inside the method, $scope is still the ParentCtrl's $scope.

Fiddle

I try to not use this inside of a function defined on $scope, as it becomes confusing which $scope is being affected, especially considering that ng-repeat, ng-include, ng-switch, and directives can all create their own child scopes.