We Keep Coding

Should I be caching jQuery selectors in the global namespace? [duplicate]

I have some trouble that comes from my Javascript (JS) codes, since I sometimes need to access the same DOM elements more than once in the same function. Some reasoning is also provided here.
From the point of view of the performance, is it better to create a jQuery object once and then cache it or is it better to create the same jQuery object at will?
Example:
function(){
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //first call
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //second call
...
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); // n-th call
}
or
function(){
var obj = $('selector XXX');
obj.doSomething(); //first call
obj.doSomething(); //second call
...
obj.doSomething(); // n-th call
}
I suppose that the answer probably depends by the value of "n", so assume that n is a "small" number (e.g. 3), then a medium number (e.g. 10) and finally a large one (e.g. 30, like if the object is used for comparison in a for cycle).
Thanks in advance.

It is always better to cache the element, if n is greater than 1, cache the element, or chain the operations together (you can do $('#something').something().somethingelse(); for most jQuery operations, since they usually return the wrapped set itself). As an aside, it has become a bit of a standard to name cache variables beginning with a money sign $ so that later in the code it is evident that you are performing an operation on a jQuery set. So you will see a lot of people do var $content = $('#content'); then $content.find('...'); later on.

The second is superior. Most importantly, it is cleaner. In the future, if you want to change your selector, you only need to change it one place. Else you need to change it in N places.
Secondly, it should perform better, although a user would only notice for particularly heavy dom, or if you were invoking that function a lot.

If you look at this question from a different perspective, the correct answer is obvious.
In the first case, you're duplicating the selection logic in every place it appears. If you change the name of the element, you have to change each occurence. This should be reason enough to not do it. Now you have two options - either you cache the element's selector or the element itself. Using the element as an object makes more sense than using the name.
Performance-wise, I think the effect is negligible. Probably you'll be able to find test results for this particular use-case: caching jQuery objects vs always re-selecting them. Performance might become an issue if you have a large DOM and do a lot of lookups, but you need to see for yourself if that's the case.
If you want to see exactly how much memory your objects are taking up, you can use the Chrome Heap Profiler and check there. I don't know if similar tools are available for other browsers and probably the implementations will vary wildly in performance, especially in IE's case, but it may satisfy your curiosity.
IMO, you should use the second variant, storing the result of the selection in an object, no so much as to improve performance but to have as little duplicate logic as possible.
As for caching $(this), I agree with Nick Craver's answer. As he said there, you should also use chaining where possible - cleans up your code and solves your problem.

You should take a look at
http://www.artzstudio.com/2009/04/jquery-performance-rules/
or
http://addyosmani.com/jqprovenperformance/

I almost always prefer to cache the jQuery object but the benefit varies greatly based on exactly what you are using for your selector. If you are using ids then the benefit is far less than if you are using types of selectors. Also, not all selectors are created equally so try to keep that in mind when you write your selectors.
For example:
$('table tr td') is a very poor selector. Try to use context or .find() and it will make a BIG difference.
One thing I like to do is place timers in my code to see just how efficient it is.
var timer = new Date();
// code here
console.log('time to complete: ' + (new Date() - timer));
Most cached objects will be performed in less than 2 milliseconds where as brand new selectors take quite a bit longer because you first have to find the element, and then perform the operation.

In JavaScript, functions are generally short-lived—especially when hosted by a browser. However, a function’s scope might outlive the function. This happens, for example, when you create a closure. If you want to prevent a jQuery object from being referenced for a long time, you can assign null to any variables that reference it when you are done with that variable or use indirection to create your closures. For example:
var createHandler = function (someClosedOverValue) {
return function () {
doSomethingWith(someClosedOverValue);
};
}
var blah = function () {
var myObject = jQuery('blah');
// We want to enable the closure to access 'red' but not keep
// myObject alive, so use a special createHandler for it:
var myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject = createHandler('red');
doSomethingElseWith(myObject, myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject);
// After this function returns, and assuming doSomethingElseWith() does
// not itself generate additional references to myObject, myObject
// will no longer have any references and be elligible for garbage
// collection.
}
Because jQuery(selector) might end up having to run expensive algorithms or even walk the DOM tree a bit for complex expressions that can’t be handled by the browser directly, it is better to cache the returned object. Also, as others have mentioned, for code clarity, it is better to cache the returned object to avoid typing the selector multiple times. I.e., DRY code is often easier to maintain than WET code.
However, each jQuery object has some amount of overhead. So storing large arrays of jQuery objects in global variables is probably wasteful—unless if you actually need to operate on large numbers of these objects and still treat them as distinct. In such a situation, you might save memory by caching arrays of the DOM elements directly and using the jQuery(DOMElement) constructor which should basically be free when iterating over them.
Though, as people say, you can only know the best approach for your particular case by benchmarking different approaches. It is hard to predict reality even when theory seems sound ;-).

Caching of javascript variables [duplicate]

I have some trouble that comes from my Javascript (JS) codes, since I sometimes need to access the same DOM elements more than once in the same function. Some reasoning is also provided here.
From the point of view of the performance, is it better to create a jQuery object once and then cache it or is it better to create the same jQuery object at will?
Example:
function(){
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //first call
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //second call
...
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); // n-th call
}
or
function(){
var obj = $('selector XXX');
obj.doSomething(); //first call
obj.doSomething(); //second call
...
obj.doSomething(); // n-th call
}
I suppose that the answer probably depends by the value of "n", so assume that n is a "small" number (e.g. 3), then a medium number (e.g. 10) and finally a large one (e.g. 30, like if the object is used for comparison in a for cycle).
Thanks in advance.

It is always better to cache the element, if n is greater than 1, cache the element, or chain the operations together (you can do $('#something').something().somethingelse(); for most jQuery operations, since they usually return the wrapped set itself). As an aside, it has become a bit of a standard to name cache variables beginning with a money sign $ so that later in the code it is evident that you are performing an operation on a jQuery set. So you will see a lot of people do var $content = $('#content'); then $content.find('...'); later on.

The second is superior. Most importantly, it is cleaner. In the future, if you want to change your selector, you only need to change it one place. Else you need to change it in N places.
Secondly, it should perform better, although a user would only notice for particularly heavy dom, or if you were invoking that function a lot.

If you look at this question from a different perspective, the correct answer is obvious.
In the first case, you're duplicating the selection logic in every place it appears. If you change the name of the element, you have to change each occurence. This should be reason enough to not do it. Now you have two options - either you cache the element's selector or the element itself. Using the element as an object makes more sense than using the name.
Performance-wise, I think the effect is negligible. Probably you'll be able to find test results for this particular use-case: caching jQuery objects vs always re-selecting them. Performance might become an issue if you have a large DOM and do a lot of lookups, but you need to see for yourself if that's the case.
If you want to see exactly how much memory your objects are taking up, you can use the Chrome Heap Profiler and check there. I don't know if similar tools are available for other browsers and probably the implementations will vary wildly in performance, especially in IE's case, but it may satisfy your curiosity.
IMO, you should use the second variant, storing the result of the selection in an object, no so much as to improve performance but to have as little duplicate logic as possible.
As for caching $(this), I agree with Nick Craver's answer. As he said there, you should also use chaining where possible - cleans up your code and solves your problem.

You should take a look at
http://www.artzstudio.com/2009/04/jquery-performance-rules/
or
http://addyosmani.com/jqprovenperformance/

I almost always prefer to cache the jQuery object but the benefit varies greatly based on exactly what you are using for your selector. If you are using ids then the benefit is far less than if you are using types of selectors. Also, not all selectors are created equally so try to keep that in mind when you write your selectors.
For example:
$('table tr td') is a very poor selector. Try to use context or .find() and it will make a BIG difference.
One thing I like to do is place timers in my code to see just how efficient it is.
var timer = new Date();
// code here
console.log('time to complete: ' + (new Date() - timer));
Most cached objects will be performed in less than 2 milliseconds where as brand new selectors take quite a bit longer because you first have to find the element, and then perform the operation.

In JavaScript, functions are generally short-lived—especially when hosted by a browser. However, a function’s scope might outlive the function. This happens, for example, when you create a closure. If you want to prevent a jQuery object from being referenced for a long time, you can assign null to any variables that reference it when you are done with that variable or use indirection to create your closures. For example:
var createHandler = function (someClosedOverValue) {
return function () {
doSomethingWith(someClosedOverValue);
};
}
var blah = function () {
var myObject = jQuery('blah');
// We want to enable the closure to access 'red' but not keep
// myObject alive, so use a special createHandler for it:
var myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject = createHandler('red');
doSomethingElseWith(myObject, myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject);
// After this function returns, and assuming doSomethingElseWith() does
// not itself generate additional references to myObject, myObject
// will no longer have any references and be elligible for garbage
// collection.
}
Because jQuery(selector) might end up having to run expensive algorithms or even walk the DOM tree a bit for complex expressions that can’t be handled by the browser directly, it is better to cache the returned object. Also, as others have mentioned, for code clarity, it is better to cache the returned object to avoid typing the selector multiple times. I.e., DRY code is often easier to maintain than WET code.
However, each jQuery object has some amount of overhead. So storing large arrays of jQuery objects in global variables is probably wasteful—unless if you actually need to operate on large numbers of these objects and still treat them as distinct. In such a situation, you might save memory by caching arrays of the DOM elements directly and using the jQuery(DOMElement) constructor which should basically be free when iterating over them.
Though, as people say, you can only know the best approach for your particular case by benchmarking different approaches. It is hard to predict reality even when theory seems sound ;-).

jQuery best practice - using selectors vs function(variable)

This is a general question about best practice in jQuery syntax/code organisation.
Consider the following snippet, used in a jQuery AJAX function:
if(obj.status == "error"){
$("#alert").html(obj.message);
}
I have also seen this written as:
function alert_box(str)
{
var html_str = '';
$("#alert").html(html_str);
}
if(obj.status == "error"){
alert_box(obj.message);
}
Functionally, this is precisely the same. My question: Is there any semantic or practical reason for differentiating between the two? What about load time / performance issues?

This is seems to be a question of "why use functions in general"? The idea behind a function is that you're making a code block reusable without having to write out the same code again. If you want to do that same thing in several places throughout your script, the function makes sense. If you only do that once, it may not be as practical. Then again, functions also help you hide details where you don't care about them - so you can summarize an action while the details of that action are somewhere in that function definition.
In this specific case, that function is broken anyway. Rather than using the passed in argument str, you have an empty variable html_str that you're replacing the html contents of an element with. Also, there's no need here to use html rather than text, which is better performance.
function alert_box(str) {
$("#alert").text(str);
}
Even though this is only a one liner, this can still be practical because it would let you use alert_box in several places throughout the script and not have to change those places later if you decide to change what alert_box does. Even something like changing the id of the element would require changes in several places, for example.
It also worth noting that this function searches the DOM for "#alert" each time it runs. It would be most optimal to cache that reference like this:
$alert = $("#alert");
function alert_box(str) {
$alert.text(str);
}
A few things that are great to study:
KISS
DRY
SOLID aka OOP

Splitting code up into functions

Due to performance and other issues, I want to split my code into seperate functions as before it was just one big ".ready" function.
I am new to javaScript/jquery but I thought I would give it a go myself. I have done exactly the way I thought it was done but my console is telling me things are undefined so I am guessing I have got things out of scope. I have read up on it in more detail, but still have not got anywhere.
My code works OK at the moment but I want to get into the habbit of clean coding. Can someone point out where I am going wrong so I can carry on myself?
Here is an example of what I have so far
//Global variables
var randomWord = [];
var listOfWords = [];
var populationNumber = [];
var attemptNumber = [];
var completionNumber = [];
var gridSize = [];
generateGrid();
startMusic();
randomizeReward();
//Click event to start the game
$(".start-btn-wrapper").click(function () {
startplay();
});
//Click event to restart the game
$(".restart-btn").click(function () {
restartplay();
});
Thanks
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/QYaGP/
Fiddle with HTML: http://jsfiddle.net/QYaGP/1/

You need to start passing some information into the functions you're defining. If your functions all have no arguments, then you will have to use globally defined variables, hardcoded references to jquery selections etc in order to get anything done.
So as an example, you have a function
function replaySound() {
$("#hintSound").attr('src', listOfWords[randomWord].hintSound);
hintSound.play();
}
This is actually going to play the sound detailed in listOfWords[randomWord] via the element #hintSound. You could do that via:
function playSound(selector, wordlistEntry) {
$(selector).attr('src', wordlistEntry.hintSound);
$(selector)[0].play();
}
And then instead of calling replaySound(), you'd call:
playSound('#hintSound', listOfWords[randomWord]);
This way the behaviour that you want is wrapped up in the function, but the specifics, i.e. the data you need for it, are passed in via the arguments. That allows you to reuse the function to play any sound using any selector, not just #hintSound.
You'll find as you do that that you need to start choosing what a function will act on in the code that calls it, rather than in the function. That's good, because the context of what you're trying to achieve is there in the calling code, not in the function. This is known as 'separation of concerns'; you try to keep logic about a given thing confined to one area, rather than spreading it about in lots of functions. But you still want functions to allow you to encapsulate behaviour. This allows you to change behaviour cleanly and easily, without having to rewrite everything every time some part of the logic changes.
The result should be that you find several functions actually did the same thing, but with different specifics, so you can just have one function instead and reuse it. That is the Don't Repeat Yourself principle, which is also important.

If you are concerned about performance, I would look into using an framework such as AngularJS. You can inject modularized code. Even better, with MVC your view is bound to your model so by changing the model the view automatically updates itself.
Also, stop using class selectors. Use ID selectors. They are much faster. You also want to preload selectors (even with class selectors). That way you are only searching the DOM once:
var ele = $('#elementId');
$(ele).doSomething();
This way, you have a reference to the DOM element. You can use a datastructure to store all of your references outside of the global scope:
var elementReferences = {}; //declaration
elementReferences.mainPage = {}; //use
elementReferences.mainPage.root = $('#mainPage'); //load the root div of a page segment
elementReferences.mainPage.title = $(elementReferences.mainPage.root).children('#title'); //load the title
elementReference.mainPage.form = $(elementReferences.mainPage.root).children('#form'); //load the form
Now you can do this:
$(elementReference.mainPage.form).whatever();
and it doesn't have to search the DOM for the element. This is especially useful for larger apps.
If you put a function within document.ready, as per your fiddle, you are only able to access that function within the scope of the document.ready call. You really want to be able to load/unload functions as needed dynamically within the scope that they are required in, which is where angularjs comes into play.
You also, for the most part, want to remove your functions and variables from the global scope and put them into containers that are sorted by their dependencies and use. This is Object Oriented Programming 101. Instead of having a bunch of arrays sitting within the global scope where they could be overwritten by mistake by another developer, you want to put them within a container:
var arrays = {}; //create the object
arrays.whatever1 = [];
arrays.whatever2 = [];
Obviously, you will probably want a more descriptive name than "arrays". Functions work the same manner:
var ajax = {}; //ajax object
var ajax.get = function(){
};
var ajax.post = function(){
};
var ajax.delete = function(){
};
This generally promotes cleaner code that is more reusable and easier to maintain. You want to spend a good portion of your time writing a spec that fully documents the overall architecture before actually beginning development. NEVER jump the gun if you can help it. Spend time thoroughly researching and planning out the big picture and how everything fits together rather than trying to wing it and figure it out as you go. You spend less time having to reinvent the wheel when you do it this way.
It's developed by google, so it should be around for quite a while. I'm not sure if you are the guy in charge of your system's architecture, but if performance/reusability is an issue at your company it is definitely worth taking a look at. I'd be more than happy to give you a walkthrough regarding most of what I know in terms of software architecture and engineering. Just MSG me if you are interested. Always happy to help!

Javascript object interaction (OOP)

It's hard to get the exact specific information on OOP you're searching for.
I tried to keep it as short as possible:
I'm currently developing a jump n run in HTML5.
I have actually no real experience with developing games.
But I know how the basics are supposed to work.
I just want to know if I'm doing it right.
I have a game, player and level object.
What I'm currently doing is the following:
Game.player = new Player();
Game.level = new Level();
Game.level.load(Game.currentLevel);
...
Game.run();
Is that the best way or should I call them all on their own, e.g.:
var Player = new Player();
var Level = new Level();
Level.load(Game.currentLevel);
...
Game.run();
They way I'm doing it right now (the first one) seems more logic to me.
But.. in the level objects functions I have to check for various variables from the game object or call a function of its self. Thus I have to write Game.level.funcName inside the Level objects functions. But since Game.level doesnt actually exist at the level objects declaration point it feels kinda wrong and dirty. Here is another example:
Level.prototype.reset = function() {
this.load(Game.currentLevel);
};
The Game.currentLevel is hardcoded, isn't there any better way to detect which variable currently handles the game object, or is it totally ok the way I'm doing it ?
So the basic question is, whats the best way to let objects interact with each other ?
And one last question which is kinda offtopic, but what does ()(); do?
I sometimes see it beeing used like this:
(function() {
// Content
});
I hope you understand my concerns, thanks for your time and answers. :)

I would recommend the first approach, because it's more modular.
Your problem can be solved by simply passing a reference of the Game instance to the other components, so that they are aware of the game.
It's not uncommon for objects to have a cyclic structure in javascript:
Game.level = new Level();
Game.level._game = Game;
//...
Level.prototype.reset = function() {
this.load(this._game.currentLevel);
};
Of course that you can do it a bit more elegant by passing reference at initialization, but I think you got my point.

I think the way you're doing things look pretty good. About the last part of your question, that's called an immediate function. It's a function that's called right after it's declared. You can see more info about here: http://javascriptmountain.com/2011/06/functions/immediate-functions-in-javascript-the-basics/

I have answer to last question
Question: what does ()(); do? I sometimes see it beeing used like this:
(function() {
// Content
});
It is the self executing closure. I will provide simplest explanation here. When we write java script function they need to be called to execute them.
For example,
function alertMe(){
alert('alerted');
}
alertMe(); // We need to call intentionally for execution of function.
Self executing closure doesn't require calling separately.
For example,
(function(){
alert('alerted');
})();
Above javascript executes automatically, when script is loaded. Same Question is answered on SO here.

Start with the user interaction and work backwards. It's possible to get too much involved in the design process and come up with convoluted designs if that design is too flexible or is solving too many problems.
Based on my limited knowledge of games, and even lesser of game programming, and what you've shown us, I believe there are two user interactions that you're dealing with here.
User picks a particular game level to play
User resets that game level
Storing the current level as a property of the game object is perfectly fine. I can think of two methods that would be needed to handle these interactions both of which would make sense on a Game object.
function setLevel(levelNumber) {
this.currentLevelNumber = levelNumber;
this.level = new Level(levelNumber);
}
function resetCurrentLevel() {
this.setLevel(this.currentLevelNumber);
}
I would break the connection from a Level object to the Game object, and load a level independently of the game as much as possible. So instead of doing,
game.level = new Level();
game.level.load(game.currentLevel);
I'd push the burden of initializing a level upon the Level constructor itself as in,
game.level = new Level(8);
or even better, make it a method call on the Game object as in my example above - setLevel(n). The method will be responsible for ensuring that the game object is consistent when the level changes.
game.setLevel(8);
Since the reset function resetCurrentLevel internally uses this method, handling of level changes will be unified whether it's loading a new level, or resetting a current level.