We Keep Coding

Is there a way to add or subtract object in JavaScript? [duplicate]

I've been working with JavaScript for a few days now and have got to a point where I want to overload operators for my defined objects.
After a stint on google searching for this it seems you can't officially do this, yet there are a few people out there claiming some long-winded way of performing this action.
Basically I've made a Vector2 class and want to be able to do the following:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x += y; //This does not result in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Instead I'm having to do this:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x = x.add(y); //This results in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Is there an approach I can take to overload operators in my Vector2 class? As this just looks plain ugly.

As you've found, JavaScript doesn't support operator overloading. The closest you can come is to implement toString (which will get called when the instance needs to be coerced to being a string) and valueOf (which will get called to coerce it to a number, for instance when using + for addition, or in many cases when using it for concatenation because + tries to do addition before concatenation), which is pretty limited. Neither lets you create a Vector2 object as a result. Similarly, Proxy (added in ES2015) lets you intercept various object operations (including property access), but again won't let you control the result of += on Vector instances.
For people coming to this question who want a string or number as a result (instead of a Vector2), though, here are examples of valueOf and toString. These examples do not demonstrate operator overloading, just taking advantage of JavaScript's built-in handling converting to primitives:
valueOf
This example doubles the value of an object's val property in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.valueOf = function() {
// Here I'm just doubling it; you'd actually do your longAdd thing
return this.val * 2;
};
var a = new Thing(1);
var b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
valueOf() {
return this.val * 2;
}
}
const a = new Thing(1);
const b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
valueOf: function() {
return this.val * 2;
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = 1;
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = 2;
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
toString
This example converts the value of an object's val property to upper case in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.toString = function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
};
var a = new Thing("a");
var b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
toString() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
}
const a = new Thing("a");
const b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
toString: function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = "a";
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = "b";
console.log(a + b); // AB

As T.J. said, you cannot overload operators in JavaScript. However you can take advantage of the valueOf function to write a hack which looks better than using functions like add every time, but imposes the constraints on the vector that the x and y are between 0 and MAX_VALUE. Here is the code:
var MAX_VALUE = 1000000;
var Vector = function(a, b) {
var self = this;
//initialize the vector based on parameters
if (typeof(b) == "undefined") {
//if the b value is not passed in, assume a is the hash of a vector
self.y = a % MAX_VALUE;
self.x = (a - self.y) / MAX_VALUE;
} else {
//if b value is passed in, assume the x and the y coordinates are the constructors
self.x = a;
self.y = b;
}
//return a hash of the vector
this.valueOf = function() {
return self.x * MAX_VALUE + self.y;
};
};
var V = function(a, b) {
return new Vector(a, b);
};
Then you can write equations like this:
var a = V(1, 2); //a -> [1, 2]
var b = V(2, 4); //b -> [2, 4]
var c = V((2 * a + b) / 2); //c -> [2, 4]

It's possible to do vector math with two numbers packed into one. Let me first show an example before I explain how it works:
let a = vec_pack([2,4]);
let b = vec_pack([1,2]);
let c = a+b; // Vector addition
let d = c-b; // Vector subtraction
let e = d*2; // Scalar multiplication
let f = e/2; // Scalar division
console.log(vec_unpack(c)); // [3, 6]
console.log(vec_unpack(d)); // [2, 4]
console.log(vec_unpack(e)); // [4, 8]
console.log(vec_unpack(f)); // [2, 4]
if(a === f) console.log("Equality works");
if(a > b) console.log("Y value takes priority");
I am using the fact that if you bit shift two numbers X times and then add or subtract them before shifting them back, you will get the same result as if you hadn't shifted them to begin with. Similarly scalar multiplication and division works symmetrically for shifted values.
A JavaScript number has 52 bits of integer precision (64 bit floats), so I will pack one number into he higher available 26 bits, and one into the lower. The code is made a bit more messy because I wanted to support signed numbers.
function vec_pack(vec){
return vec[1] * 67108864 + (vec[0] < 0 ? 33554432 | vec[0] : vec[0]);
}
function vec_unpack(number){
switch(((number & 33554432) !== 0) * 1 + (number < 0) * 2){
case(0):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(1):
return [(number % 33554432)-33554432,Math.trunc(number / 67108864)+1];
break;
case(2):
return [(((number+33554432) % 33554432) + 33554432) % 33554432,Math.round(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(3):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
}
}
The only downside I can see with this is that the x and y has to be in the range +-33 million, since they have to fit within 26 bits each.

Actually, there is one variant of JavaScript that does support operator overloading. ExtendScript, the scripting language used by Adobe applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, does have operator overloading. In it, you can write:
Vector2.prototype["+"] = function( b )
{
return new Vector2( this.x + b.x, this.y + b.y );
}
var a = new Vector2(1,1);
var b = new Vector2(2,2);
var c = a + b;
This is described in more detail in the "Adobe Extendscript JavaScript tools guide" (current link here). The syntax was apparently based on a (now long abandoned) draft of the ECMAScript standard.

FYI paper.js solves this issue by creating PaperScript, a self-contained, scoped javascript with operator overloading of vectors, which it then processing back into javascript.
But the paperscript files need to be specifically specified and processed as such.

We can use React-like Hooks to evaluate arrow function with different values from valueOf method on each iteration.
const a = Vector2(1, 2) // [1, 2]
const b = Vector2(2, 4) // [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
// There arrow function will iterate twice
// 1 iteration: method valueOf return X component
// 2 iteration: method valueOf return Y component
const Vector2 = (function() {
let index = -1
return function(x, y) {
if (typeof x === 'function') {
const calc = x
index = 0, x = calc()
index = 1, y = calc()
index = -1
}
return Object.assign([x, y], {
valueOf() {
return index == -1 ? this.toString() : this[index]
},
toString() {
return `[${this[0]}, ${this[1]}]`
},
len() {
return Math.sqrt(this[0] ** 2 + this[1] ** 2)
}
})
}
})()
const a = Vector2(1, 2)
const b = Vector2(2, 4)
console.log('a = ' + a) // a = [1, 2]
console.log(`b = ${b}`) // b = [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
a[0] = 12
const d = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [13, 4]
const normalized = Vector2(() => d / d.len()) // [0.955..., 0.294...]
console.log(c, d, normalized)
Library #js-basics/vector uses the same idea for Vector3.

I wrote a library that exploits a bunch of evil hacks to do it in raw JS. It allows expressions like these.
Complex numbers:
>> Complex()({r: 2, i: 0} / {r: 1, i: 1} + {r: -3, i: 2}))
<- {r: -2, i: 1}
Automatic differentiation:
Let f(x) = x^3 - 5x:
>> var f = x => Dual()(x * x * x - {x:5, dx:0} * x);
Now map it over some values:
>> [-2,-1,0,1,2].map(a=>({x:a,dx:1})).map(f).map(a=>a.dx)
<- [ 7, -2, -5, -2, 7 ]
i.e. f'(x) = 3x^2 - 5.
Polynomials:
>> Poly()([1,-2,3,-4]*[5,-6]).map((c,p)=>''+c+'x^'+p).join(' + ')
<- "5x^0 + -16x^1 + 27x^2 + -38x^3 + 24x^4"
For your particular problem, you would define a Vector2 function (or maybe something shorter) using the library, then write x = Vector2()(x + y);
https://gist.github.com/pyrocto/5a068100abd5ff6dfbe69a73bbc510d7

Whilst not an exact answer to the question, it is possible to implement some of the python __magic__ methods using ES6 Symbols
A [Symbol.toPrimitive]() method doesn't let you imply a call Vector.add(), but will let you use syntax such as Decimal() + int.
class AnswerToLifeAndUniverseAndEverything {
[Symbol.toPrimitive](hint) {
if (hint === 'string') {
return 'Like, 42, man';
} else if (hint === 'number') {
return 42;
} else {
// when pushed, most classes (except Date)
// default to returning a number primitive
return 42;
}
}
}
https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/metaprogramming-in-es6-symbols/

Interesting is also experimental library operator-overloading-js . It does overloading in a defined context (callback function) only.

ES6/7 equivalent to underscore’s range function

Is there any ECMAScript 6/7 equivalent to underscore’s range function?
In underscore:
_.range(startPage, endPage + 1);
In ES2015:
Array.from(Array(n), (_, i) => x + i)
Not sure how the ES2015 version works. I would like to know how range in ecmascript of javascript works

The idea is to create an array of length end - start + 1, and then fill it with the relevant numbers using Array#from.
The Array.from() method creates a new Array instance from an
array-like or iterable object.
In this case Array#from needs an object with the length property. Using Array(n) creates such an object (array). You can also use { length: n } directly. In this case n = Math.abs(end - start) + 1.
Array#from accepts a mapFn callback, a function that can transform the iterated value. The function receives 2 params - the values (which we can ignore in this case), and the index (0 based). Adding start to the current index will create the numbers in the range.
const range = (start, end) => Array.from(
Array(Math.abs(end - start) + 1),
(_, i) => start + i
);
console.log(range(5, 10));
console.log(range(-10, -5));
console.log(range(-5, 10));
This version will handle reverse range as well (large to small) as well:
const range = (start, end) => {
const inc = (end - start) / Math.abs(end - start);
return Array.from(
Array(Math.abs(end - start) + 1),
(_, i) => start + i * inc
);
};
console.log(range(5, 10));
console.log(range(-5, -10));
console.log(range(10, -5));

Note that the following implementation does not allow for lazy-generated lists:
Array.from(Array(n), (_, i) => x + i)
Imagine that you need a list of 1M numbers:
range(1, 1000000);
Are you going to consume all of them? Maybe not, yet all the numbers have been generated already and they probably left a non-trivial footprint on your memory.
It would be nice if we could get them one by one on demand.
It turns out we can do exactly that with a generator:
function* range(start, end, step = 1) {
for (let value = start; value < end; value += step) {
yield value;
}
}
for (let x of range(1, Infinity)) {
if (x > 10) {
break;
}
console.log(x);
}
Did you notice the range(1, Infinity) bit?
In a classic implementation where all the numbers are generated in advance, this code wouldn't even run as you would get stuck in an infinite number-generating loop.

As I understand it, the range method generates an array of numbers starting from start, stepping with step (default = 1) until end. This simple function does just that :-)
const range = (start, end, step = 1) => {
let result = [];
for(let i=0; i<=end; i+=step) {
result.push(i);
}
return result;
};
What is nice here is that you can use decimal step values.
For example:
range(0, 2, 0.5) // [ 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 ]
range(0,100,20) // [ 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 ]

Is there a way to override assignmenet operator in JS ES6 classes? [duplicate]

I've been working with JavaScript for a few days now and have got to a point where I want to overload operators for my defined objects.
After a stint on google searching for this it seems you can't officially do this, yet there are a few people out there claiming some long-winded way of performing this action.
Basically I've made a Vector2 class and want to be able to do the following:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x += y; //This does not result in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Instead I'm having to do this:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x = x.add(y); //This results in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Is there an approach I can take to overload operators in my Vector2 class? As this just looks plain ugly.

As you've found, JavaScript doesn't support operator overloading. The closest you can come is to implement toString (which will get called when the instance needs to be coerced to being a string) and valueOf (which will get called to coerce it to a number, for instance when using + for addition, or in many cases when using it for concatenation because + tries to do addition before concatenation), which is pretty limited. Neither lets you create a Vector2 object as a result. Similarly, Proxy (added in ES2015) lets you intercept various object operations (including property access), but again won't let you control the result of += on Vector instances.
For people coming to this question who want a string or number as a result (instead of a Vector2), though, here are examples of valueOf and toString. These examples do not demonstrate operator overloading, just taking advantage of JavaScript's built-in handling converting to primitives:
valueOf
This example doubles the value of an object's val property in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.valueOf = function() {
// Here I'm just doubling it; you'd actually do your longAdd thing
return this.val * 2;
};
var a = new Thing(1);
var b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
valueOf() {
return this.val * 2;
}
}
const a = new Thing(1);
const b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
valueOf: function() {
return this.val * 2;
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = 1;
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = 2;
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
toString
This example converts the value of an object's val property to upper case in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.toString = function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
};
var a = new Thing("a");
var b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
toString() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
}
const a = new Thing("a");
const b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
toString: function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = "a";
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = "b";
console.log(a + b); // AB

As T.J. said, you cannot overload operators in JavaScript. However you can take advantage of the valueOf function to write a hack which looks better than using functions like add every time, but imposes the constraints on the vector that the x and y are between 0 and MAX_VALUE. Here is the code:
var MAX_VALUE = 1000000;
var Vector = function(a, b) {
var self = this;
//initialize the vector based on parameters
if (typeof(b) == "undefined") {
//if the b value is not passed in, assume a is the hash of a vector
self.y = a % MAX_VALUE;
self.x = (a - self.y) / MAX_VALUE;
} else {
//if b value is passed in, assume the x and the y coordinates are the constructors
self.x = a;
self.y = b;
}
//return a hash of the vector
this.valueOf = function() {
return self.x * MAX_VALUE + self.y;
};
};
var V = function(a, b) {
return new Vector(a, b);
};
Then you can write equations like this:
var a = V(1, 2); //a -> [1, 2]
var b = V(2, 4); //b -> [2, 4]
var c = V((2 * a + b) / 2); //c -> [2, 4]

It's possible to do vector math with two numbers packed into one. Let me first show an example before I explain how it works:
let a = vec_pack([2,4]);
let b = vec_pack([1,2]);
let c = a+b; // Vector addition
let d = c-b; // Vector subtraction
let e = d*2; // Scalar multiplication
let f = e/2; // Scalar division
console.log(vec_unpack(c)); // [3, 6]
console.log(vec_unpack(d)); // [2, 4]
console.log(vec_unpack(e)); // [4, 8]
console.log(vec_unpack(f)); // [2, 4]
if(a === f) console.log("Equality works");
if(a > b) console.log("Y value takes priority");
I am using the fact that if you bit shift two numbers X times and then add or subtract them before shifting them back, you will get the same result as if you hadn't shifted them to begin with. Similarly scalar multiplication and division works symmetrically for shifted values.
A JavaScript number has 52 bits of integer precision (64 bit floats), so I will pack one number into he higher available 26 bits, and one into the lower. The code is made a bit more messy because I wanted to support signed numbers.
function vec_pack(vec){
return vec[1] * 67108864 + (vec[0] < 0 ? 33554432 | vec[0] : vec[0]);
}
function vec_unpack(number){
switch(((number & 33554432) !== 0) * 1 + (number < 0) * 2){
case(0):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(1):
return [(number % 33554432)-33554432,Math.trunc(number / 67108864)+1];
break;
case(2):
return [(((number+33554432) % 33554432) + 33554432) % 33554432,Math.round(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(3):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
}
}
The only downside I can see with this is that the x and y has to be in the range +-33 million, since they have to fit within 26 bits each.

Actually, there is one variant of JavaScript that does support operator overloading. ExtendScript, the scripting language used by Adobe applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, does have operator overloading. In it, you can write:
Vector2.prototype["+"] = function( b )
{
return new Vector2( this.x + b.x, this.y + b.y );
}
var a = new Vector2(1,1);
var b = new Vector2(2,2);
var c = a + b;
This is described in more detail in the "Adobe Extendscript JavaScript tools guide" (current link here). The syntax was apparently based on a (now long abandoned) draft of the ECMAScript standard.

FYI paper.js solves this issue by creating PaperScript, a self-contained, scoped javascript with operator overloading of vectors, which it then processing back into javascript.
But the paperscript files need to be specifically specified and processed as such.

We can use React-like Hooks to evaluate arrow function with different values from valueOf method on each iteration.
const a = Vector2(1, 2) // [1, 2]
const b = Vector2(2, 4) // [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
// There arrow function will iterate twice
// 1 iteration: method valueOf return X component
// 2 iteration: method valueOf return Y component
const Vector2 = (function() {
let index = -1
return function(x, y) {
if (typeof x === 'function') {
const calc = x
index = 0, x = calc()
index = 1, y = calc()
index = -1
}
return Object.assign([x, y], {
valueOf() {
return index == -1 ? this.toString() : this[index]
},
toString() {
return `[${this[0]}, ${this[1]}]`
},
len() {
return Math.sqrt(this[0] ** 2 + this[1] ** 2)
}
})
}
})()
const a = Vector2(1, 2)
const b = Vector2(2, 4)
console.log('a = ' + a) // a = [1, 2]
console.log(`b = ${b}`) // b = [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
a[0] = 12
const d = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [13, 4]
const normalized = Vector2(() => d / d.len()) // [0.955..., 0.294...]
console.log(c, d, normalized)
Library #js-basics/vector uses the same idea for Vector3.

I wrote a library that exploits a bunch of evil hacks to do it in raw JS. It allows expressions like these.
Complex numbers:
>> Complex()({r: 2, i: 0} / {r: 1, i: 1} + {r: -3, i: 2}))
<- {r: -2, i: 1}
Automatic differentiation:
Let f(x) = x^3 - 5x:
>> var f = x => Dual()(x * x * x - {x:5, dx:0} * x);
Now map it over some values:
>> [-2,-1,0,1,2].map(a=>({x:a,dx:1})).map(f).map(a=>a.dx)
<- [ 7, -2, -5, -2, 7 ]
i.e. f'(x) = 3x^2 - 5.
Polynomials:
>> Poly()([1,-2,3,-4]*[5,-6]).map((c,p)=>''+c+'x^'+p).join(' + ')
<- "5x^0 + -16x^1 + 27x^2 + -38x^3 + 24x^4"
For your particular problem, you would define a Vector2 function (or maybe something shorter) using the library, then write x = Vector2()(x + y);
https://gist.github.com/pyrocto/5a068100abd5ff6dfbe69a73bbc510d7

Whilst not an exact answer to the question, it is possible to implement some of the python __magic__ methods using ES6 Symbols
A [Symbol.toPrimitive]() method doesn't let you imply a call Vector.add(), but will let you use syntax such as Decimal() + int.
class AnswerToLifeAndUniverseAndEverything {
[Symbol.toPrimitive](hint) {
if (hint === 'string') {
return 'Like, 42, man';
} else if (hint === 'number') {
return 42;
} else {
// when pushed, most classes (except Date)
// default to returning a number primitive
return 42;
}
}
}
https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/metaprogramming-in-es6-symbols/

Interesting is also experimental library operator-overloading-js . It does overloading in a defined context (callback function) only.

Is there a mechanism to loop x times in ES6 (ECMAScript 6) without mutable variables?

The typical way to loop x times in JavaScript is:
for (var i = 0; i < x; i++)
doStuff(i);
But I don't want to use the ++ operator or have any mutable variables at all. So is there a way, in ES6, to loop x times another way? I love Ruby's mechanism:
x.times do |i|
do_stuff(i)
end
Anything similar in JavaScript/ES6? I could kind of cheat and make my own generator:
function* times(x) {
for (var i = 0; i < x; i++)
yield i;
}
for (var i of times(5)) {
console.log(i);
}
Of course I'm still using i++. At least it's out of sight :), but I'm hoping there's a better mechanism in ES6.

Using the ES2015 Spread operator:
[...Array(n)].map()
const res = [...Array(10)].map((_, i) => {
return i * 10;
});
// as a one liner
const res = [...Array(10)].map((_, i) => i * 10);
Or if you don't need the result:
[...Array(10)].forEach((_, i) => {
console.log(i);
});
// as a one liner
[...Array(10)].forEach((_, i) => console.log(i));
Or using the ES2015 Array.from operator:
Array.from(...)
const res = Array.from(Array(10)).map((_, i) => {
return i * 10;
});
// as a one liner
const res = Array.from(Array(10)).map((_, i) => i * 10);
Note that if you just need a string repeated you can use String.prototype.repeat.
console.log("0".repeat(10))
// 0000000000

OK!
The code below is written using ES6 syntaxes but could just as easily be written in ES5 or even less. ES6 is not a requirement to create a "mechanism to loop x times"
If you don't need the iterator in the callback, this is the most simple implementation
const times = x => f => {
if (x > 0) {
f()
times (x - 1) (f)
}
}
// use it
times (3) (() => console.log('hi'))
// or define intermediate functions for reuse
let twice = times (2)
// twice the power !
twice (() => console.log('double vision'))
If you do need the iterator, you can use a named inner function with a counter parameter to iterate for you
const times = n => f => {
let iter = i => {
if (i === n) return
f (i)
iter (i + 1)
}
return iter (0)
}
times (3) (i => console.log(i, 'hi'))
Stop reading here if you don't like learning more things ...
But something should feel off about those...
single branch if statements are ugly — what happens on the other branch ?
multiple statements/expressions in the function bodies — are procedure concerns being mixed ?
implicitly returned undefined — indication of impure, side-effecting function
"Isn't there a better way ?"
There is. Let's first revisit our initial implementation
// times :: Int -> (void -> void) -> void
const times = x => f => {
if (x > 0) {
f() // has to be side-effecting function
times (x - 1) (f)
}
}
Sure, it's simple, but notice how we just call f() and don't do anything with it. This really limits the type of function we can repeat multiple times. Even if we have the iterator available, f(i) isn't much more versatile.
What if we start with a better kind of function repetition procedure ? Maybe something that makes better use of input and output.
Generic function repetition
// repeat :: forall a. Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
const repeat = n => f => x => {
if (n > 0)
return repeat (n - 1) (f) (f (x))
else
return x
}
// power :: Int -> Int -> Int
const power = base => exp => {
// repeat <exp> times, <base> * <x>, starting with 1
return repeat (exp) (x => base * x) (1)
}
console.log(power (2) (8))
// => 256
Above, we defined a generic repeat function which takes an additional input which is used to start the repeated application of a single function.
// repeat 3 times, the function f, starting with x ...
var result = repeat (3) (f) (x)
// is the same as ...
var result = f(f(f(x)))
Implementing times with repeat
Well this is easy now; almost all of the work is already done.
// repeat :: forall a. Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
const repeat = n => f => x => {
if (n > 0)
return repeat (n - 1) (f) (f (x))
else
return x
}
// times :: Int -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
const times = n=> f=>
repeat (n) (i => (f(i), i + 1)) (0)
// use it
times (3) (i => console.log(i, 'hi'))
Since our function takes i as an input and returns i + 1, this effectively works as our iterator which we pass to f each time.
We've fixed our bullet list of issues too
No more ugly single branch if statements
Single-expression bodies indicate nicely separated concerns
No more useless, implicitly returned undefined
JavaScript comma operator, the
In case you're having trouble seeing how the last example is working, it depends on your awareness of one of JavaScript's oldest battle axes; the comma operator – in short, it evaluates expressions from left to right and returns the value of the last evaluated expression
(expr1 :: a, expr2 :: b, expr3 :: c) :: c
In our above example, I'm using
(i => (f(i), i + 1))
which is just a succinct way of writing
(i => { f(i); return i + 1 })
Tail Call Optimisation
As sexy as the recursive implementations are, at this point it would be irresponsible for me to recommend them given that no JavaScript VM I can think of supports proper tail call elimination – babel used to transpile it, but it's been in "broken; will reimplement" status for well over a year.
repeat (1e6) (someFunc) (x)
// => RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
As such, we should revisit our implementation of repeat to make it stack-safe.
The code below does use mutable variables n and x but note that all mutations are localized to the repeat function – no state changes (mutations) are visible from outside of the function
// repeat :: Int -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
const repeat = n => f => x =>
{
let m = 0, acc = x
while (m < n)
(m = m + 1, acc = f (acc))
return acc
}
// inc :: Int -> Int
const inc = x =>
x + 1
console.log (repeat (1e8) (inc) (0))
// 100000000
This is going to have a lot of you saying "but that's not functional !" – I know, just relax. We can implement a Clojure-style loop/recur interface for constant-space looping using pure expressions; none of that while stuff.
Here we abstract while away with our loop function – it looks for a special recur type to keep the loop running. When a non-recur type is encountered, the loop is finished and the result of the computation is returned
const recur = (...args) =>
({ type: recur, args })
const loop = f =>
{
let acc = f ()
while (acc.type === recur)
acc = f (...acc.args)
return acc
}
const repeat = $n => f => x =>
loop ((n = $n, acc = x) =>
n === 0
? acc
: recur (n - 1, f (acc)))
const inc = x =>
x + 1
const fibonacci = $n =>
loop ((n = $n, a = 0, b = 1) =>
n === 0
? a
: recur (n - 1, b, a + b))
console.log (repeat (1e7) (inc) (0)) // 10000000
console.log (fibonacci (100)) // 354224848179262000000

for (let i of Array(100).keys()) {
console.log(i)
}

Here is another good alternative:
Array.from({ length: 3}).map(...);
Preferably, as #Dave Morse pointed out in the comments, you can also get rid of the map call, by using the second parameter of the Array.from function like so:
Array.from({ length: 3 }, () => (...))

I think the best solution is to use let:
for (let i=0; i<100; i++) …
That will create a new (mutable) i variable for each body evaluation and assures that the i is only changed in the increment expression in that loop syntax, not from anywhere else.
I could kind of cheat and make my own generator. At least i++ is out of sight :)
That should be enough, imo. Even in pure languages, all operations (or at least, their interpreters) are built from primitives that use mutation. As long as it is properly scoped, I cannot see what is wrong with that.
You should be fine with
function* times(n) {
for (let i = 0; i < n; i++)
yield i;
}
for (const i of times(5)) {
console.log(i);
}
But I don't want to use the ++ operator or have any mutable variables at all.
Then your only choice is to use recursion. You can define that generator function without a mutable i as well:
function* range(i, n) {
if (i >= n) return;
yield i;
return yield* range(i+1, n);
}
times = (n) => range(0, n);
But that seems overkill to me and might have performance problems (as tail call elimination is not available for return yield*).

I think it is pretty simple:
[...Array(3).keys()]
or
Array(3).fill()

const times = 4;
new Array(times).fill().map(() => console.log('test'));
This snippet will console.log test 4 times.

Answer: 09 December 2015
Personally, I found the accepted answer both concise (good) and terse (bad). Appreciate this statement might be subjective, so please read this answer and see if you agree or disagree
The example given in the question was something like Ruby's:
x.times do |i|
do_stuff(i)
end
Expressing this in JS using below would permit:
times(x)(doStuff(i));
Here is the code:
let times = (n) => {
return (f) => {
Array(n).fill().map((_, i) => f(i));
};
};
That's it!
Simple example usage:
let cheer = () => console.log('Hip hip hooray!');
times(3)(cheer);
//Hip hip hooray!
//Hip hip hooray!
//Hip hip hooray!
Alternatively, following the examples of the accepted answer:
let doStuff = (i) => console.log(i, ' hi'),
once = times(1),
twice = times(2),
thrice = times(3);
once(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
twice(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
//1 ' hi'
thrice(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
//1 ' hi'
//2 ' hi'
Side note - Defining a range function
A similar / related question, that uses fundamentally very similar code constructs, might be is there a convenient Range function in (core) JavaScript, something similar to underscore's range function.
Create an array with n numbers, starting from x
Underscore
_.range(x, x + n)
ES2015
Couple of alternatives:
Array(n).fill().map((_, i) => x + i)
Array.from(Array(n), (_, i) => x + i)
Demo using n = 10, x = 1:
> Array(10).fill().map((_, i) => i + 1)
// [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
> Array.from(Array(10), (_, i) => i + 1)
// [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
In a quick test I ran, with each of the above running a million times each using our solution and doStuff function, the former approach (Array(n).fill()) proved slightly faster.

I am late to the party, but since this question turns up often in search results, I would just like to add a solution that I consider to be the best in terms of readability while not being long (which is ideal for any codebase IMO). It mutates, but I'd make that tradeoff for KISS principles.
let times = 5
while( times-- )
console.log(times)
// logs 4, 3, 2, 1, 0

Array(100).fill().map((_,i)=> console.log(i) );
This version satisifies the OP's requirement for immutability. Also consider using reduce instead of map depending on your use case.
This is also an option if you don't mind a little mutation in your prototype.
Number.prototype.times = function(f) {
return Array(this.valueOf()).fill().map((_,i)=>f(i));
};
Now we can do this
((3).times(i=>console.log(i)));
+1 to arcseldon for the .fill suggestion.

Not something I would teach (or ever use in my code), but here's a codegolf-worthy solution without mutating a variable, no need for ES6:
Array.apply(null, {length: 10}).forEach(function(_, i){
doStuff(i);
})
More of an interesting proof-of-concept thing than a useful answer, really.

If you're willing to use a library, there's also lodash _.times or underscore _.times:
_.times(x, i => {
return doStuff(i)
})
Note this returns an array of the results, so it's really more like this ruby:
x.times.map { |i|
doStuff(i)
}

Afaik, there is no mechanism in ES6 similar to Ruby's times method. But you can avoid mutation by using recursion:
let times = (i, cb, l = i) => {
if (i === 0) return;
cb(l - i);
times(i - 1, cb, l);
}
times(5, i => doStuff(i));
Demo: http://jsbin.com/koyecovano/1/edit?js,console

In the functional paradigm repeat is usually an infinite recursive function. To use it we need either lazy evaluation or continuation passing style.
Lazy evaluated function repetition
const repeat = f => x => [x, () => repeat(f) (f(x))];
const take = n => ([x, f]) => n === 0 ? x : take(n - 1) (f());
console.log(
take(8) (repeat(x => x * 2) (1)) // 256
);
I use a thunk (a function without arguments) to achieve lazy evaluation in Javascript.
Function repetition with continuation passing style
const repeat = f => x => [x, k => k(repeat(f) (f(x)))];
const take = n => ([x, k]) => n === 0 ? x : k(take(n - 1));
console.log(
take(8) (repeat(x => x * 2) (1)) // 256
);
CPS is a little scary at first. However, it always follows the same pattern: The last argument is the continuation (a function), which invokes its own body: k => k(...). Please note that CPS turns the application inside out, i.e. take(8) (repeat...) becomes k(take(8)) (...) where k is the partially applied repeat.
Conclusion
By separating the repetition (repeat) from the termination condition (take) we gain flexibility - separation of concerns up to its bitter end :D

Advantages of this solution
Simplest to read / use (imo)
Return value can be used as a sum, or just ignored
Plain es6 version, also link to TypeScript version of the code
Disadvantages
- Mutation. Being internal only I don't care, maybe some others will not either.
Examples and Code
times(5, 3) // 15 (3+3+3+3+3)
times(5, (i) => Math.pow(2,i) ) // 31 (1+2+4+8+16)
times(5, '<br/>') // <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>
times(3, (i, count) => { // name[0], name[1], name[2]
let n = 'name[' + i + ']'
if (i < count-1)
n += ', '
return n
})
function times(count, callbackOrScalar) {
let type = typeof callbackOrScalar
let sum
if (type === 'number') sum = 0
else if (type === 'string') sum = ''
for (let j = 0; j < count; j++) {
if (type === 'function') {
const callback = callbackOrScalar
const result = callback(j, count)
if (typeof result === 'number' || typeof result === 'string')
sum = sum === undefined ? result : sum + result
}
else if (type === 'number' || type === 'string') {
const scalar = callbackOrScalar
sum = sum === undefined ? scalar : sum + scalar
}
}
return sum
}
TypeScipt version
https://codepen.io/whitneyland/pen/aVjaaE?editors=0011

The simplest way I can think of for creating list/array within range
Array.from(Array(max-min+1), (_, index) => index+min)

I have another alternative
[...Array(30).keys()]

addressing the functional aspect:
function times(n, f) {
var _f = function (f) {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
f(i);
}
};
return typeof f === 'function' && _f(f) || _f;
}
times(6)(function (v) {
console.log('in parts: ' + v);
});
times(6, function (v) {
console.log('complete: ' + v);
});

Generators? Recursion? Why so much hatin' on mutatin'? ;-)
If it is acceptable as long as we "hide" it, then just accept the use of a unary operator and we can keep things simple:
Number.prototype.times = function(f) { let n=0 ; while(this.valueOf() > n) f(n++) }
Just like in ruby:
> (3).times(console.log)
0
1
2

I wrapped #Tieme s answer with a helper function.
In TypeScript:
export const mapN = <T = any[]>(count: number, fn: (...args: any[]) => T): T[] => [...Array(count)].map((_, i) => fn())
Now you can run:
const arr: string[] = mapN(3, () => 'something')
// returns ['something', 'something', 'something']

I made this:
function repeat(func, times) {
for (var i=0; i<times; i++) {
func(i);
}
}
Usage:
repeat(function(i) {
console.log("Hello, World! - "+i);
}, 5)
/*
Returns:
Hello, World! - 0
Hello, World! - 1
Hello, World! - 2
Hello, World! - 3
Hello, World! - 4
*/
The i variable returns the amount of times it has looped - useful if you need to preload an x amount of images.

I am just going to put this here. If you are looking for a compact function without using Arrays and you have no issue with mutability/immutability :
var g =x=>{/*your code goes here*/x-1>0?g(x-1):null};

For me, this is the easiest answer to understand for many levels of developers
const times = (n, callback) => {
while (n) {
callback();
n--;
}
}
times(10, ()=> console.log('hello'))

It seems to me that the most correct answer (which is debatable) to this question is buried in a comment by Sasha Kondrashov and is also the most concise, using just two characters: "no". There is no functional alternative to a for-loop as nice as the syntax that Ruby has. We might want there to be one, but there just isn't.
It is not explicitly stated in the question, but I would argue any solution to the problem of 'looping N times' should not allocate memory, at least not proportional to N. That criterium would rule out most of the answers that are 'native to javascript'.
Other answers show implementations like the one in Ruby, which is fine, except that the question explicitly asks for a native javascript solution. And there is already a very decent hand-rolled solution in the question, arguably one of the most readable of all.

Javascript: operator overloading

I've been working with JavaScript for a few days now and have got to a point where I want to overload operators for my defined objects.
After a stint on google searching for this it seems you can't officially do this, yet there are a few people out there claiming some long-winded way of performing this action.
Basically I've made a Vector2 class and want to be able to do the following:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x += y; //This does not result in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Instead I'm having to do this:
var x = new Vector2(10,10);
var y = new Vector2(10,10);
x = x.add(y); //This results in x being a vector with 20,20 as its x & y values.
Is there an approach I can take to overload operators in my Vector2 class? As this just looks plain ugly.

As you've found, JavaScript doesn't support operator overloading. The closest you can come is to implement toString (which will get called when the instance needs to be coerced to being a string) and valueOf (which will get called to coerce it to a number, for instance when using + for addition, or in many cases when using it for concatenation because + tries to do addition before concatenation), which is pretty limited. Neither lets you create a Vector2 object as a result. Similarly, Proxy (added in ES2015) lets you intercept various object operations (including property access), but again won't let you control the result of += on Vector instances.
For people coming to this question who want a string or number as a result (instead of a Vector2), though, here are examples of valueOf and toString. These examples do not demonstrate operator overloading, just taking advantage of JavaScript's built-in handling converting to primitives:
valueOf
This example doubles the value of an object's val property in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.valueOf = function() {
// Here I'm just doubling it; you'd actually do your longAdd thing
return this.val * 2;
};
var a = new Thing(1);
var b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
valueOf() {
return this.val * 2;
}
}
const a = new Thing(1);
const b = new Thing(2);
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
valueOf: function() {
return this.val * 2;
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = 1;
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = 2;
console.log(a + b); // 6 (1 * 2 + 2 * 2)
toString
This example converts the value of an object's val property to upper case in response to being coerced to a primitive, for instance via +:
function Thing(val) {
this.val = val;
}
Thing.prototype.toString = function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
};
var a = new Thing("a");
var b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or with ES2015's class:
class Thing {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
toString() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
}
const a = new Thing("a");
const b = new Thing("b");
console.log(a + b); // AB
Or just with objects, no constructors:
var thingPrototype = {
toString: function() {
return this.val.toUpperCase();
}
};
var a = Object.create(thingPrototype);
a.val = "a";
var b = Object.create(thingPrototype);
b.val = "b";
console.log(a + b); // AB

As T.J. said, you cannot overload operators in JavaScript. However you can take advantage of the valueOf function to write a hack which looks better than using functions like add every time, but imposes the constraints on the vector that the x and y are between 0 and MAX_VALUE. Here is the code:
var MAX_VALUE = 1000000;
var Vector = function(a, b) {
var self = this;
//initialize the vector based on parameters
if (typeof(b) == "undefined") {
//if the b value is not passed in, assume a is the hash of a vector
self.y = a % MAX_VALUE;
self.x = (a - self.y) / MAX_VALUE;
} else {
//if b value is passed in, assume the x and the y coordinates are the constructors
self.x = a;
self.y = b;
}
//return a hash of the vector
this.valueOf = function() {
return self.x * MAX_VALUE + self.y;
};
};
var V = function(a, b) {
return new Vector(a, b);
};
Then you can write equations like this:
var a = V(1, 2); //a -> [1, 2]
var b = V(2, 4); //b -> [2, 4]
var c = V((2 * a + b) / 2); //c -> [2, 4]

It's possible to do vector math with two numbers packed into one. Let me first show an example before I explain how it works:
let a = vec_pack([2,4]);
let b = vec_pack([1,2]);
let c = a+b; // Vector addition
let d = c-b; // Vector subtraction
let e = d*2; // Scalar multiplication
let f = e/2; // Scalar division
console.log(vec_unpack(c)); // [3, 6]
console.log(vec_unpack(d)); // [2, 4]
console.log(vec_unpack(e)); // [4, 8]
console.log(vec_unpack(f)); // [2, 4]
if(a === f) console.log("Equality works");
if(a > b) console.log("Y value takes priority");
I am using the fact that if you bit shift two numbers X times and then add or subtract them before shifting them back, you will get the same result as if you hadn't shifted them to begin with. Similarly scalar multiplication and division works symmetrically for shifted values.
A JavaScript number has 52 bits of integer precision (64 bit floats), so I will pack one number into he higher available 26 bits, and one into the lower. The code is made a bit more messy because I wanted to support signed numbers.
function vec_pack(vec){
return vec[1] * 67108864 + (vec[0] < 0 ? 33554432 | vec[0] : vec[0]);
}
function vec_unpack(number){
switch(((number & 33554432) !== 0) * 1 + (number < 0) * 2){
case(0):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(1):
return [(number % 33554432)-33554432,Math.trunc(number / 67108864)+1];
break;
case(2):
return [(((number+33554432) % 33554432) + 33554432) % 33554432,Math.round(number / 67108864)];
break;
case(3):
return [(number % 33554432),Math.trunc(number / 67108864)];
break;
}
}
The only downside I can see with this is that the x and y has to be in the range +-33 million, since they have to fit within 26 bits each.

Actually, there is one variant of JavaScript that does support operator overloading. ExtendScript, the scripting language used by Adobe applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, does have operator overloading. In it, you can write:
Vector2.prototype["+"] = function( b )
{
return new Vector2( this.x + b.x, this.y + b.y );
}
var a = new Vector2(1,1);
var b = new Vector2(2,2);
var c = a + b;
This is described in more detail in the "Adobe Extendscript JavaScript tools guide" (current link here). The syntax was apparently based on a (now long abandoned) draft of the ECMAScript standard.

FYI paper.js solves this issue by creating PaperScript, a self-contained, scoped javascript with operator overloading of vectors, which it then processing back into javascript.
But the paperscript files need to be specifically specified and processed as such.

We can use React-like Hooks to evaluate arrow function with different values from valueOf method on each iteration.
const a = Vector2(1, 2) // [1, 2]
const b = Vector2(2, 4) // [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
// There arrow function will iterate twice
// 1 iteration: method valueOf return X component
// 2 iteration: method valueOf return Y component
const Vector2 = (function() {
let index = -1
return function(x, y) {
if (typeof x === 'function') {
const calc = x
index = 0, x = calc()
index = 1, y = calc()
index = -1
}
return Object.assign([x, y], {
valueOf() {
return index == -1 ? this.toString() : this[index]
},
toString() {
return `[${this[0]}, ${this[1]}]`
},
len() {
return Math.sqrt(this[0] ** 2 + this[1] ** 2)
}
})
}
})()
const a = Vector2(1, 2)
const b = Vector2(2, 4)
console.log('a = ' + a) // a = [1, 2]
console.log(`b = ${b}`) // b = [2, 4]
const c = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [2, 4]
a[0] = 12
const d = Vector2(() => (2 * a + b) / 2) // [13, 4]
const normalized = Vector2(() => d / d.len()) // [0.955..., 0.294...]
console.log(c, d, normalized)
Library #js-basics/vector uses the same idea for Vector3.

I wrote a library that exploits a bunch of evil hacks to do it in raw JS. It allows expressions like these.
Complex numbers:
>> Complex()({r: 2, i: 0} / {r: 1, i: 1} + {r: -3, i: 2}))
<- {r: -2, i: 1}
Automatic differentiation:
Let f(x) = x^3 - 5x:
>> var f = x => Dual()(x * x * x - {x:5, dx:0} * x);
Now map it over some values:
>> [-2,-1,0,1,2].map(a=>({x:a,dx:1})).map(f).map(a=>a.dx)
<- [ 7, -2, -5, -2, 7 ]
i.e. f'(x) = 3x^2 - 5.
Polynomials:
>> Poly()([1,-2,3,-4]*[5,-6]).map((c,p)=>''+c+'x^'+p).join(' + ')
<- "5x^0 + -16x^1 + 27x^2 + -38x^3 + 24x^4"
For your particular problem, you would define a Vector2 function (or maybe something shorter) using the library, then write x = Vector2()(x + y);
https://gist.github.com/pyrocto/5a068100abd5ff6dfbe69a73bbc510d7

Whilst not an exact answer to the question, it is possible to implement some of the python __magic__ methods using ES6 Symbols
A [Symbol.toPrimitive]() method doesn't let you imply a call Vector.add(), but will let you use syntax such as Decimal() + int.
class AnswerToLifeAndUniverseAndEverything {
[Symbol.toPrimitive](hint) {
if (hint === 'string') {
return 'Like, 42, man';
} else if (hint === 'number') {
return 42;
} else {
// when pushed, most classes (except Date)
// default to returning a number primitive
return 42;
}
}
}
https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/metaprogramming-in-es6-symbols/

Interesting is also experimental library operator-overloading-js . It does overloading in a defined context (callback function) only.