A little new to JS so be gentle :)
I'm trying to create a program that holds 5000+ boolean values that dynamically change based on other vars.
const chars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0";
const charsC = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0"
const maxNum = 48;
const maxTile = 6;
var tile1, tile2, tile3, tile4, tile5, tile6
// test vars
var tile4 = "A27"
var t4a27 = false
// this snippet will be in an interval loop
for (let i = 1; i <= maxTile; ++i) {
for (let n = 0; n < chars.length; ++n) {
for (let j = 1; j <= maxNum; ++j) {
// this obviously doesnt work
var t[i][`${chars[n]}`][j];
// ^ ^ ^
if (tile[i] == `${charsC[n]}${j}`) {
t[i][h][j] = true;
console.log(t4a27)
} else {
t[i][h][j] = false;
}
}
}
}
For clarification a better word than "tile" for the vars could be "sprite" rather because its a point on the sprite.
The basic concept is the tile vars are designed to output their current position as a string value e.g. "A27". Then this loop will take that information and scan each tile subset to be true/false. So if the sprite lower right quadrant is inside "A27" the output would be t4a27 = true
In practice I can do this with just a lot of code (over 20,000 lines) but I figured their has to be an easier way that requires far less code.
This is probably not the right approach for your problem.
If you really need to store this amount of variables, it is probably best to put them in an object like so:
var tiles = {}
var tileName = 'abc'
// Dynamic setting:
tile[tileName] = true
// Dynamic reading:
console.log(tile[tileName])
I am wondering if you really want to store 5000 variables or if there is another way to calculate them at the time you need time, but that requires a bit more knowledge of the problem.
Javascript doesn't have this kind of ability to reflect local variables.
What you can do is attach all those variables to a global object, and proceed with: Object.keys(your_object) and your_object[key_name_here] = ...
I think you should use a 2-dim array for this. Or use a regular array of booleans with the appropriate size and do the index-magic yourself.
As you said, you are running on coordinates. A-27 is the same as row(1)+field(27) -- considering A is 1
If your field is 500x100, you create an Array as such: let gamefield = Array(500*100);
Warning: I have not tested this for syntax errors, but you should get the idea.
let gamefield = Array(500*100);
// optional gamefield.fill(true);
let row = idx => idx * 500;
let posIdx = (r, c) => row(r) + c;
// there is a sprite with a tiles property that returns
// 4 index positions for the sprite's quadrants as [r,c]
let quadrants = sprite.tiles.reportPositions()
// filter the quadrants where the gamefield at r,c is true
// this might also be a good case for some() instead of filter()
let collisions = quadrants.filter(pos => return gamefield[posIdx(...pos)]);
// if there is any of these, you can kill the sprite.
if(collisions.length > 0) sprite.kill();
Related
I work on a personal project to try out equations to try to simulate the behavior of a galaxy. I have so far managed to place the Points as I wanted, but now I want to take each point individually to change its position.
The goal for now is just to successfully try to apply a Random Vector to each of the points.
I tried:
var direction = new THREE.Vector3(0.00003, 0.000005, 0);
points.position.add(direction);
but this applies to all Points.
Then I tried something like that:
for (let i = 0; i < points.geometry.attributes.position.count; i++) {
points.geometry.attributes.position[i] = Math.random() * 500
}
points.geometry.attributes.position.needsUpdate = true;
But nothing append :( I thing I missed something but I dind't know what
Here the full code on codepen:
Codepen
When you access:
points.geometry.attributes.position[i]
you're not getting the array of the vertex positions. You're getting the BufferAttribute. What you probably want is the array inside the BufferAttribute:
points.geometry.attributes.position.array[i]
However, this is still not the recommended approach. Three.js recommends you use the .getAttribute() method:
// Get the attribute
const posAttribute = points.geometry.getAttribute("position");
// Get the array inside the attribute
const posArray = posAttribute.array;
// Increment by 3 at a time to access XYZ separately
for(let i3 = 0; i3 < posArray.length; i3 += 3) {
posArray[i3 + 0] = xPosition;
posArray[i3 + 1] = yPosition;
posArray[i3 + 2] = zPosition;
}
// Tell the attribute it needs updatin
posAttribute.needsUpdate = true;
I am trying to implement a simple Pong Q-Network in JS using p5 and tfjs.
To train the network, I first created a custom loss function where I passed a label tensor only containing the labels for the actions a_t
TFjs didn't really seemed to like the fact that the shape was different from the predictions from the model, so I crafted another custom loss function where the label input is a tensor of shape [batchSize, 3] (3 actions up, down and none) where each element is in the form [0,0,y_j] or [0,y_j,0] or [y_j,0,0] (y_j at the place I am supposed to compare to the predictions tensor and 0 elsewhere). Here it is:
function bellmanLoss(predictions, labels)
{
let predictions_buffer = predictions.buffer();
let labels_buffer = labels.buffer();
let length = labels.shape[0];
predictions.dispose();
labels.dispose();
let loss = 0;
for(let i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
for(let j = 0; j < 3; j++)
{
if(labels_buffer.get(i,j) != 0)
{
loss += Math.pow(labels_buffer.get(i,j) - predictions_buffer.get(i,j), 2);
break;
}
}
}
return tf.tensor(loss);
}
But here I am crafting a tensor from scratch and so I get this error using model.fit: "Error: Cannot find a connection between any variable and the result of the loss function y=f(x). Please make sure the operations that use variables are inside the function f passed to minimize()".
Is there a way to have a loss compatible with model.fit or do I have to tune the model weights manually (which would be a pain)?
Update : I've made some changes to be more "tensory" and it seem to go in the right direction:
function bellmanLoss(preds, labels)
{
let mask = tf.cast(labels, 'bool');
let zeros = tf.zerosLike(preds);
let clean_preds = preds.where(mask, zeros);
return tf.squaredDifference(clean_preds, labels).mean();
}
However, I still need to find another alternative because
"Error: Cannot compute gradient: gradient function not found for where"
Final update: I've found a way without using tf.where and it works
function bellmanLoss(preds, labels)
{
let mask_b = tf.cast(labels, 'bool');
let mask = tf.cast(mask_b, 'float32');
let clean_preds = preds.mul(mask);
return tf.squaredDifference(clean_preds, labels).mean();
}
I am trying to make two arrays. the unique array can get the elements (no repeats) from the text array, and the counter one can count the frequency of each elements. but something is wrong with the counter one.
var unique_array=new Array();
var counter_array=new Array();
var unique=true;
for (i=0;i<text_array.length;i++){
if (unique_array.length==0){
unique_array.push(text_array[0]);
counter_array.push(1);
}
else if(unique_array.length>0&&unique_array.length<=text_array.length){
for (j=0; j<unique_array.length;j++){
if (text_array[i]==unique_array[j]){
counter_array[j]=counter_array[j]+1;// something wrong with the
alert(counter_array[j]);
var unique=false;
}
}
if (unique==true){
unique_array.push(text_array[i]);
counter_array.push[1];
}
unique=true;
}
You could also simplify the code down using a hashmap and some ES5 higher-order functions:
var text_array = ["a1","a1","a2","a3","a2","a4","a1","a5"];
var counts = {};
text_array.forEach(function(el) {
counts[el] = counts.hasOwnProperty(el) ? counts[el]+1 : 1;
});
var unique_array = Object.keys(counts);
var counter_array=unique_array.map(function(key) { return counts[key]; })
You can do this much more simply using an object. Let the values be the keys of an object, then just increment the count of each property as you go. At the end, you can get an array of the unique keys and their values:
var text_array = ['foo','bar','foo','fum','fum','foo'];
var i = text_array.length;
var obj = {};
while (i--) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(text_array[i])) {
obj[text_array[i]]++;
} else {
obj[text_array[i]] = 1;
}
}
console.log('Unique values: ' + Object.keys(obj)); // Unique values: foo,fum,bar
console.log('Value counts: ' + Object.keys(obj).map(function(v){return obj[v]})); // Value counts: 3,2,1
Note that the sorting of counts in the output is purely coincidental.
As Jasvir posted, you can make it pretty concise:
var obj = {};
text_array.forEach(function(v) {
obj.hasOwnProperty(v)? ++obj[v] : obj[v] = 1;
});
But the first example is a bit easier to digest.
I think the approach is what's making it difficult. A hash table / associative array would be much easier to work with.
With a hash table (an object {} in JS), you can store each word in a key and increment the value of the key when you encounter the word again. Then, at the end, just go through the hash table and gather up all the keys which have small values. Those are your unique words.
function get_unique_words(text_array) {
var hash_table, i, unique_words, keys;
hash_table = {};
for(i = 0; i < text_array.length; i++) {
if(hash_table[text_array[i]] === undefined) {
hash_table[text_array[i]] = 1;
} else {
hash_table[text_array[i]]++;
}
}
// go through the hash table and get all the unique words
unique_words = [];
keys = Object.keys(hash_table);
for(i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
if(hash_table[keys[i]] === 1) {
unique_words.push(keys[i]);
}
}
return unique_words.sort();
}
console.log(get_unique_words(
['blah', 'blah', 'blah', 'goose', 'duck',
'mountain', 'rock', 'paper', 'rock', 'scissors']
));
Some issues and suggestions :
Don't use var twice for the same variable.
Browsers deal with it ok, but for clarity you should only be declaring your variables once.
Always localize your loop counters - forgetting a var before your i and j will cause them to become global variables.
This is relevant when you have a page with lots of code - all global variables will show up in the debugger's watch list at all times, making it harder to debug your code.)
Use the array literal notation [] instead of the function form Array.
The function form is longer and it's easier to forget the new. It's also easier to read (IMO).
Use more whitespace (it won't bite), such as before and after an equals sign:
var x = 1;
// vs.
var x=1;
It makes the code easier to read and most people don't overdo it.
Indent your code when it's inside a block (e.g. function, if, else, while, for, etc.).
This makes it easier to read the control flow of the code and will help prevent bugs.
Use three equals signs (===) unless you are using loose equality on purpose.
This will help someone looking at your code later (probably yourself) understand better what the test is supposed to be testing.
This is a simplification of something that I've come up against in a larger project so I hope it makes sense.
I have two Objects:
FirstObj = {
data : [],
init : function()
{
for(var a = 0; a < 20; a++)
{
this.data[a] = 1;
}
}
};
SecondObj = {
init : function()
{
var cell = FirstObj.data[0];
cell = 0;
}
};
I then call the two init methods and log the results:
(function(){
FirstObj.init();
SecondObj.init();
console.log(FirstObj.data);
})()
Now, I was assuming - based on my basis in Actionscript - that the log would show an Array in which the first item is a 0 and the rest all 1 but the 0 does not seem to stick.
Why does the assignment of the 0 value not succeed here and yet works fine if, instead of cell = 0 I target directly at FirstObj.data[0] = 0.
I'm guessing this is a scope thing and I can work round it but I'm trying to get a proper understanding of how JS actually handles this stuff, especially when lumping code into Objects like this (as an aside, is this a good approach in peoples general opinion?).
Thank for any help.
Numbers in JavaScript are something called primitive value types (alongside strings, booleans null and undefined).
This means, that when you do
var cell = FirstObj.data[0];
You're passing the value in FirstObj.data[0] and not a refernece to it.
What you're doing is like:
var x = 5;
var y = x; // y is now 5
y = 4; // y is 4, x is still 5.
Of course, something like FirstObj.data[0] = 0 should work.
Array indexing returns values in Javascript, not references. It means that once data[0] is assigned to cell, further modification of cell will not affect data[0].
Assigning the array itself would result in the behavior you're looking for:
SecondObj = {
init : function()
{
var cells = FirstObj.data;
cells[0] = 0; // Will also affect data[0].
}
};
WARNING: CPU Usage goes to 100%, be careful.
Link to the jsFiddle
This script has been written to design a dynamic snake and ladder board. Everytime the page is refreshed a new board is created. Most of the time all of the background images do not appear, and the CPU usage goes up to 100%. But on occasion all of them appear and the CPU usage is normal.
Opera shows some of the background images, Firefox lags and asks me if I wish to stop the script.
I believe that the problem is with these lines of code:
for(var key in origin) // Need to implement check to ensure that two keys do not have the same VALUES!
{
if(origin[key] == random_1 || origin[key] == random_2 || key == random_2) // End points cannot be the same AND starting and end points cannot be the same.
{
valFlag = 1;
}
console.log(key);
}
Your algorithm is very ineffective. When array is almost filled up, you literally do millions of useless iterations until you're in luck and RNG accidentally picks missing number. Rewrite it to:
Generate an array of all possible numbers - from 1 to 99.
When you need a random numbers, generate a random index in current bounds of this array, splice element and this random position, removing it from array and use its value as your desired random number.
If generated numbers don't fit some of your conditions (minDiff?) return them back to array. Do note, that you can still stall in loop forever if everything that is left in array is unable to fit your conditions.
Every value you pull from array in this way is guaranteed to be unique, since you originally filled it with unique numbers and remove them on use.
I've stripped drawing and placed generated numbers into array that you can check in console. Put your drawing back and it should work - numbers are generated instantly now:
var snakes = ['./Images/Snakes/snake1.png','./Images/Snakes/snake2.jpg','./Images/Snakes/snake3.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake4.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake5.gif','./Images/Snakes/snake6.jpg'];
var ladders = ['./Images/Ladders/ladder1.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder2.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder3.png','./Images/Ladders/ladder4.jpg','./Images/Ladders/ladder5.png'];
function drawTable()
{
// Now generating snakes.
generateRand(snakes,0);
generateRand(ladders,1);
}
var uniqNumbers = []
for(var idx = 1; idx < 100; idx++){ uniqNumbers.push(idx) }
var results = []
function generateRand(arr,flag)
{
var valFlag = 0;
var minDiff = 8; // Minimum difference between start of snake/ladder to its end.
var temp;
for(var i = 0; i< arr.length; ++i) {
var valid = false
// This is the single place it still can hang, through with current size of arrays it is highly unlikely
do {
var random_1 = uniqNumbers.splice(Math.random() * uniqNumbers.length, 1)[0]
var random_2 = uniqNumbers.splice(Math.random() * uniqNumbers.length, 1)[0]
if (Math.abs(random_1 - random_2) < minDiff) {
// return numbers
uniqNumbers.push(random_1)
uniqNumbers.push(random_2)
} else {
valid = true
}
} while (!valid);
if(flag == 0) // Snake
{
if(random_1 < random_2) // Swapping them if the first number is smaller than the second number.
{
var temp = random_1; random_1 = random_2; random_2 = temp
}
}
else // Ladders
{
if(random_1>random_2) // Swapping them if the first number is greater than the second number.
{
var temp = random_1; random_1 = random_2; random_2 = temp
}
}
// Just for debug - look results up on console
results.push([random_1, random_2])
}
}
drawTable()
I had a problem like this using "HighCharts", in a for loop - "browsers" have an in-built functionality to detect dead scripts or infinite loops. So the browsers halts or pop-ups up a message saying not responding. Not sure if you have that symptom!
This was resulted from a "loop" with a large pool of data. I wrote a tutorial on it on CodeProject, you might try it, and it might be your answer.
http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/406739/Preventing-Stop-running-this-script-in-Browsers