I want to extend the number class to have instance functions such as odd and even so I can do something like this:
2.odd() => false
2.even() => true
1.even() => false
1.odd() => true
Extending classes is a good Ruby practise: "Ruby check if even number, float".
Is the same true in JavaScript, or does it cause performance issues or some other problem?
Anyway, I can't extend despite my best efforts:
var NumberInstanceExtensions = {
accuracy: function(){
return 'This is cool ' + this
}
}
$.extend(Number.prototype,NumberInstanceExtensions);
alert( $.type(5) ); //-> number
//alert( 5.accuracy() ); //-> Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL
http://jsfiddle.net/VLPTb/2/
How can I get this to work? The syntax error makes me think this isn't how JavaScript works on a fundamental level. Is my best bet extending the Math class and doing this instead:
Math.odd(2) => false
Math.even(2) => true
Math.even(1) => false
Math.odd(1) => true
That seems far more inelegant than 2.odd().
I think as long as you understand the side-effects of your "extension" then you're okay. I often modify the String prototype to add an "elipsis" method so I can do things like
"SomeString".elipsis()
But start at the beginning. You're not "extending classes" in JavaScript. JavaScript is a prototype-based language. You can modify prototypes to do what you need.
You won't be able to add a method directly to the number itself. You can, however modify the prototype of the Number object:
Number.prototype.even = function(){
return this.valueOf() % 2 === 0;
}
With this, you won't be able to use the following syntax:
10.even();
But, since you aren't hard-coding stuff, otherwise you wouldn't need this function anyways, you CAN do the following:
var a = 10;
a.even(); //true
I might say that you could consider adding a utilities object to do these things, because modifying primitive prototypes is not always guaranteed to be side-effect free.
This function does not really provide any gain for you. You're checking for odd and even, replacing one line of code with another. Think about the difference:
var a = 10;
var aIsEven = a.even();
vs:
var a = 10;
var aIsEven = a % 2 === 0;
You gain three characters of code, and the second option is less likely to break your "JavaScript".
You can extend natives JS objects by using (for example) Number.prototype.myFn = function(){}.
So you could do :
Math.prototype.odd = function(n){
return n % 2 === 0;
};
Math.prototype.even = function(n){
return n % 2 === 1;
};
And then use it like so :
var two = 2;
console.log(Math.odd(2)); // true
BUT I would strongly advise you against extending natives in JavaScript.
You can read more about it here
EDIT : After trying my code on JSFiddle, it appears the Math object has no prototype, you can read more about it here. The code above won't work !
Instead, you could do :
Math.odd = function(n){
return n % 2 === 0;
};
Math.even = function(n){
return n % 2 === 1;
};
console.log(Math.odd(2)); // true
or :
Number.prototype.odd = function(){
return this % 2 === 0;
};
Number.prototype.even = function(){
return this % 2 === 1;
};
console.log(new Number(2).odd()); // true
I'd like to point out that that is already available in the numbers class.
Just use the boolean methods, odd? and even?
2.odd?
=> false
2.even?
=> true
Hope this helps.
No need to create a new class, it already exists in the numbers class.
I have been studying JavaScript algorithms and Big O for interviews. I was told that knowing the runtimes of built-in methods, such as Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty and Array.prototype.map, is important.
What is a simple way to view the source code for these functions in node.js? I have a local copy of node.js, and I tried to search for these methods in my text editor, but it's not as straightforward as I thought.
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty()
From a Javascript interview point of view, I would think you just need to fully understand what obj.hasOwnProperty() does at the Javascript level, not how it's implemented inside of V8.
To do that, you should fully understand this little snippet:
function MyConstructor() {
this.methodB = function() {}
}
MyConstructor.prototype = {
methodA: function() {}
};
var o = new MyConstructor();
log(o.hasOwnProperty("methodA")); // false
log(o.hasOwnProperty("methodB")); // true
o.methodA = function() {}; // assign "own" property, overrides prototype
log(o.hasOwnProperty("methodA")); // true
This is because .hasOwnProperty() looks only on the object itself and not on the prototype chain. So properties which are only on the prototype chain or do not exist at all will return false and properties which are directly on the object will return true.
Array.prototype.map()
A polyfill in Javascript for Array.prototype.map() is here on MDN which will show you exactly how it works. You can, of course, do the same type of search I did above in the Github repository to find the .map() implementation too if you want.
Array.prototype.map() is pretty simple really. Iterate over an array, calling a function for each item in the array. Each return value of that function will be used to construct a new array that will be returned from the call to .map(). So, conceptually, it's used to "map" one array to another by calling some transform function on each element of the original array.
In the simplest incarnation, you add 1 to each element of an array:
var origArray = [1,2,3];
var newArray = origArray.map(function(item, index, array) {
return item + 1;
});
console.log(newArray); // [2,3,4]
Actual V8 source code:
If you really want to see how it is implemented inside of V8, here are code snippets and links to the relevant actual code files. As you can see, most of it is in C++ and to understand it, you have to understand how objects are structured in memory and what C++ methods they have internally in V8. This is very V8-specific, not general Javascript knowledge.
I've included links to the relevant source files too so if you want to see other context in those files, you can click on the links to see that.
In v8.h:
V8_DEPRECATED("Use maybe version", bool HasOwnProperty(Local<String> key));
V8_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT Maybe<bool> HasOwnProperty(Local<Context> context, Local<Name> key);
In api.cc:
Maybe<bool> v8::Object::HasOwnProperty(Local<Context> context,
Local<Name> key) {
PREPARE_FOR_EXECUTION_PRIMITIVE(context, "v8::Object::HasOwnProperty()",
bool);
auto self = Utils::OpenHandle(this);
auto key_val = Utils::OpenHandle(*key);
auto result = i::JSReceiver::HasOwnProperty(self, key_val);
has_pending_exception = result.IsNothing();
RETURN_ON_FAILED_EXECUTION_PRIMITIVE(bool);
return result;
}
bool v8::Object::HasOwnProperty(Local<String> key) {
auto context = ContextFromHeapObject(Utils::OpenHandle(this));
return HasOwnProperty(context, key).FromMaybe(false);
}
In v8natives.js:
// ES6 7.3.11
function ObjectHasOwnProperty(value) {
var name = TO_NAME(value);
var object = TO_OBJECT(this);
return %HasOwnProperty(object, name);
}
In objects-inl.h:
Maybe<bool> JSReceiver::HasOwnProperty(Handle<JSReceiver> object,
Handle<Name> name) {
if (object->IsJSObject()) { // Shortcut
LookupIterator it = LookupIterator::PropertyOrElement(
object->GetIsolate(), object, name, LookupIterator::HIDDEN);
return HasProperty(&it);
}
Maybe<PropertyAttributes> attributes =
JSReceiver::GetOwnPropertyAttributes(object, name);
MAYBE_RETURN(attributes, Nothing<bool>());
return Just(attributes.FromJust() != ABSENT);
}
In runtime-object.cc:
static Object* HasOwnPropertyImplementation(Isolate* isolate,
Handle<JSObject> object,
Handle<Name> key) {
Maybe<bool> maybe = JSReceiver::HasOwnProperty(object, key);
if (!maybe.IsJust()) return isolate->heap()->exception();
if (maybe.FromJust()) return isolate->heap()->true_value();
// Handle hidden prototypes. If there's a hidden prototype above this thing
// then we have to check it for properties, because they are supposed to
// look like they are on this object.
if (object->map()->has_hidden_prototype()) {
PrototypeIterator iter(isolate, object);
DCHECK(!iter.IsAtEnd());
// TODO(verwaest): The recursion is not necessary for keys that are array
// indices. Removing this.
// Casting to JSObject is fine because JSProxies are never used as
// hidden prototypes.
return HasOwnPropertyImplementation(
isolate, PrototypeIterator::GetCurrent<JSObject>(iter), key);
}
RETURN_FAILURE_IF_SCHEDULED_EXCEPTION(isolate);
return isolate->heap()->false_value();
}
RUNTIME_FUNCTION(Runtime_HasOwnProperty) {
HandleScope scope(isolate);
DCHECK(args.length() == 2);
CONVERT_ARG_HANDLE_CHECKED(Object, object, 0)
CONVERT_ARG_HANDLE_CHECKED(Name, key, 1);
uint32_t index;
const bool key_is_array_index = key->AsArrayIndex(&index);
// Only JS objects can have properties.
if (object->IsJSObject()) {
Handle<JSObject> js_obj = Handle<JSObject>::cast(object);
// Fast case: either the key is a real named property or it is not
// an array index and there are no interceptors or hidden
// prototypes.
// TODO(jkummerow): Make JSReceiver::HasOwnProperty fast enough to
// handle all cases directly (without this custom fast path).
Maybe<bool> maybe = Nothing<bool>();
if (key_is_array_index) {
LookupIterator it(js_obj->GetIsolate(), js_obj, index,
LookupIterator::HIDDEN);
maybe = JSReceiver::HasProperty(&it);
} else {
maybe = JSObject::HasRealNamedProperty(js_obj, key);
}
if (!maybe.IsJust()) return isolate->heap()->exception();
DCHECK(!isolate->has_pending_exception());
if (maybe.FromJust()) {
return isolate->heap()->true_value();
}
Map* map = js_obj->map();
if (!key_is_array_index && !map->has_named_interceptor() &&
!map->has_hidden_prototype()) {
return isolate->heap()->false_value();
}
// Slow case.
return HasOwnPropertyImplementation(isolate, Handle<JSObject>(js_obj),
Handle<Name>(key));
} else if (object->IsString() && key_is_array_index) {
// Well, there is one exception: Handle [] on strings.
Handle<String> string = Handle<String>::cast(object);
if (index < static_cast<uint32_t>(string->length())) {
return isolate->heap()->true_value();
}
} else if (object->IsJSProxy()) {
Maybe<bool> result =
JSReceiver::HasOwnProperty(Handle<JSProxy>::cast(object), key);
if (!result.IsJust()) return isolate->heap()->exception();
return isolate->heap()->ToBoolean(result.FromJust());
}
return isolate->heap()->false_value();
}
This is the node.js Github repository. If you know what to search for and have enough patience to wade through all the search hits, you can generally find anything you need. The unfortunate thing about searching on Github is I have not found any way to remove all the test sub-directories from the search so you end up with 95% of the search hits in the test code, not in the actual implementation code. But, with enough persistence, you can eventually find what you need.
I am trying to make an Object who, when I search for a property, performs a "look-up" of that property case-insensitively.
var x = new CaseInsensitiveObject();
x.firstProperty = "Hello!";
alert(x.firstproperty); //alerts Hello!
I've tried using Object.defineProperty() for this, yet it requires the string literal for the property as a parameter (Object.defineProperties() will have the same problem if you think about it).
Is there a way that I can generic set the getter for all object properties of an object without providing the key name? i.e:
Object.defineAllProperties(obj, {
get: function(prop)
{
if(!prop.toLowerCase && prop.toString)
prop = prop.toString();
if(prop.toLowerCase)
prop = prop.toLowerCase();
return this[prop];
}
});
If not all properties, how could I set even one property of an Object to be case insensitive?!
NOTE:
I understand that extending the Object.prototype is generally a bad thing to do, but I have my reasons. I need a quick fix due to some database changes. The eventual fix will take days to do, and I need running software for QA to test against until then. This prototype method will make everything work while I make all of the necessary changes, and this method WILL NOT be put into any production environment. So, if you plan on shooting me down and yelling at me for even thinking about doing this, I'm not listening.
Thanks everybody!
So, after following #apsillers comment, I did solve my problem (I only needed support for lower-case and camel-case. This is not what I would consider ideal and does not actually answer my question of making a case-insensitive Object property, but I should share:
function makeCaseInsensitiveObject(obj)
{
var keys;
function PropertyScope(iObj, key, val)
{
var value = val;
var _get = function()
{
return value;
};
var _set = function(v)
{
value = v;
};
Object.defineProperty(iObj, key, {
get: _get,
set: _set
});
Object.defineProperty(iObj, key.toLowerCase(), {
get: _get,
set: _set
});
};
if(Object.keys)
keys = Object.keys(obj);
else
keys = getObjectKeys(obj);
for(var i = 0; i < keys.length; i++)
{
if(typeof keys[i] === 'string')
{
PropertyScope(obj, keys[i], obj[keys[i]]);
}
}
return obj;
};
Be aware that the case-insensitivity here will only apply to existing object properties, not any new ones.
Thanks everybody!
I'm working on an Exercism JavaScript exercise and I've gotten stuck. The exercise is to create a function which loops over a string, then creates an object with each word as a key and the number of times that that word appears as the corresponding value. Simple right? Well, now I'm stuck on one of the later steps, the input string contains the word "constructor" and you need to put it into the object as a key. Here's the code I have so far, as well as the Jasmine spec which tests it:
function words(words){
count = {};
splits = words.split(" ");
for(var i = 0; i < splits.length; i++){
splits[i] = splits[i].replace(/[;:!&#$%\^,]/g, "").toLowerCase();
if([splits[i]] == ""){
continue;
}else if(count[splits.i] !== null){
count[splits[i]]++;
}else{
count[splits[i]] = 1;
}
}
return count;
};
words("constructor Constructor")
describe("words()", function() {
it("counts constructor", function() {
var expectedCounts = { constructor: 2 };
expect(words("constructor Constructor")).toEqual(expectedCounts);
});
});
Problem is, using either dot or bracket notation in the second conditional, it evaluates to true as "constructor" is inherited from the Object prototype up the chain and so it tries to increment a NaN value. I've tried to find a work around but have come up empty. And as much as I love JS, it's inheritance has it's quirks. Is there any way to prevent inheritance in this case or another work around that anyone can think of?
Instead of comparing to null to see if you've already set a property on count, use hasOwnProperty. hasOwnProperty doesn't include properties that come from up the prototype chain, only ones directly on the object.
if (count.hasOwnProperty(splits[i])) {
count[splits[i]]++;
} else{
count[splits[i]] = 1;
}
What's the fastest way to count the number of keys/properties of an object? Is it possible to do this without iterating over the object? I.e., without doing:
var count = 0;
for (k in myobj) if (myobj.hasOwnProperty(k)) ++count;
(Firefox did provide a magic __count__ property, but this was removed somewhere around version 4.)
To do this in any ES5-compatible environment, such as Node.js, Chrome, Internet Explorer 9+, Firefox 4+, or Safari 5+:
Object.keys(obj).length
Browser compatibility
Object.keys documentation (includes a method you can add to non-ES5 browsers)
You could use this code:
if (!Object.keys) {
Object.keys = function (obj) {
var keys = [],
k;
for (k in obj) {
if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, k)) {
keys.push(k);
}
}
return keys;
};
}
Then you can use this in older browsers as well:
var len = Object.keys(obj).length;
If you are using Underscore.js you can use _.size (thanks douwe):
_.size(obj)
Alternatively you can also use _.keys which might be clearer for some:
_.keys(obj).length
I highly recommend Underscore.js. It's a tight library for doing lots of basic things. Whenever possible, they match ECMAScript 5 and defer to the native implementation.
Otherwise I support Avi Flax' answer. I edited it to add a link to the MDC documentation which includes the keys() method you can add to non-ECMAScript 5 browsers.
The standard Object implementation (ES5.1 Object Internal Properties and Methods) does not require an Object to track its number of keys/properties, so there should be no standard way to determine the size of an Object without explicitly or implicitly iterating over its keys.
So here are the most commonly used alternatives:
1. ECMAScript's Object.keys()
Object.keys(obj).length; Works by internally iterating over the keys to compute a temporary array and returns its length.
Pros - Readable and clean syntax. No library or custom code required except a shim if native support is unavailable
Cons - Memory overhead due to the creation of the array.
2. Library-based solutions
Many library-based examples elsewhere in this topic are useful idioms in the context of their library. From a performance viewpoint, however, there is nothing to gain compared to a perfect no-library code since all those library methods actually encapsulate either a for-loop or ES5 Object.keys (native or shimmed).
3. Optimizing a for-loop
The slowest part of such a for-loop is generally the .hasOwnProperty() call, because of the function call overhead. So when I just want the number of entries of a JSON object, I just skip the .hasOwnProperty() call if I know that no code did nor will extend Object.prototype.
Otherwise, your code could be very slightly optimized by making k local (var k) and by using prefix-increment operator (++count) instead of postfix.
var count = 0;
for (var k in myobj) if (myobj.hasOwnProperty(k)) ++count;
Another idea relies on caching the hasOwnProperty method:
var hasOwn = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
var count = 0;
for (var k in myobj) if (hasOwn.call(myobj, k)) ++count;
Whether this is faster or not on a given environment is a question of benchmarking. Very limited performance gain can be expected anyway.
Here are some performance tests for three methods;
https://jsperf.com/get-the-number-of-keys-in-an-object
Object.keys().length
20,735 operations per second
It is very simple and compatible and runs fast but expensive, because it creates a new array of keys, which then gets thrown away.
return Object.keys(objectToRead).length;
Loop through the keys
15,734 operations per second
let size=0;
for(let k in objectToRead) {
size++
}
return size;
It is slightly slower, but nowhere near the memory usage, so it is probably better if you're interested in optimising for mobile or other small machines.
Using Map instead of Object
953,839,338 operations per second
return mapToRead.size;
Basically, Map tracks its own size, so we're just returning a number field. It is far, far faster than any other method. If you have control of the object, convert them to maps instead.
If you are actually running into a performance problem I would suggest wrapping the calls that add/remove properties to/from the object with a function that also increments/decrements an appropriately named (size?) property.
You only need to calculate the initial number of properties once and move on from there. If there isn't an actual performance problem, don't bother. Just wrap that bit of code in a function getNumberOfProperties(object) and be done with it.
As answered in a previous answer: Object.keys(obj).length
But: as we have now a real Map class in ES6, I would suggest to use it instead of using the properties of an object.
const map = new Map();
map.set("key", "value");
map.size; // THE fastest way
this works for both, Arrays and Objects
//count objects/arrays
function count(obj){
return Object.keys(obj).length
}
count objects/arrays with a Loop
function count(obj){
var x=0;
for(k in obj){
x++;
}
return x;
}
count objects/arrays or also the length of a String
function count(obj){
if (typeof (obj) === 'string' || obj instanceof String)
{
return obj.toString().length;
}
return Object.keys(obj).length
}
As stated by Avi Flax,
Object.keys(obj).length
will do the trick for all enumerable properties on your object, but to also include the non-enumerable properties, you can instead use the Object.getOwnPropertyNames. Here's the difference:
var myObject = new Object();
Object.defineProperty(myObject, "nonEnumerableProp", {
enumerable: false
});
Object.defineProperty(myObject, "enumerableProp", {
enumerable: true
});
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(myObject).length); //outputs 2
console.log(Object.keys(myObject).length); //outputs 1
console.log(myObject.hasOwnProperty("nonEnumerableProp")); //outputs true
console.log(myObject.hasOwnProperty("enumerableProp")); //outputs true
console.log("nonEnumerableProp" in myObject); //outputs true
console.log("enumerableProp" in myObject); //outputs true
As stated here, this has the same browser support as Object.keys.
However, in most cases, you might not want to include the nonenumerables in these type of operations, but it's always good to know the difference ;)
To iterate on Avi Flax' answer, Object.keys(obj).length is correct for an object that doesn’t have functions tied to it.
Example:
obj = {"lol": "what", owo: "pfft"};
Object.keys(obj).length; // should be 2
versus
arr = [];
obj = {"lol": "what", owo: "pfft"};
obj.omg = function(){
_.each(obj, function(a){
arr.push(a);
});
};
Object.keys(obj).length; // should be 3 because it looks like this
/* obj === {"lol": "what", owo: "pfft", omg: function(){_.each(obj, function(a){arr.push(a);});}} */
Steps to avoid this:
do not put functions in an object that you want to count the number of keys in
use a separate object or make a new object specifically for functions (if you want to count how many functions there are in the file using Object.keys(obj).length)
Also, yes, I used the _ or Underscore.js module from Node.js in my example.
Documentation can be found here as well as its source on GitHub and various other information.
And finally a lodash implementation https://lodash.com/docs#size
_.size(obj)
I'm not aware of any way to do this. However, to keep the iterations to a minimum, you could try checking for the existence of __count__ and if it doesn't exist (i.e., not Firefox) then you could iterate over the object and define it for later use, e.g.:
if (myobj.__count__ === undefined) {
myobj.__count__ = ...
}
This way, any browser supporting __count__ would use that, and iterations would only be carried out for those which don't. If the count changes and you can't do this, you could always make it a function:
if (myobj.__count__ === undefined) {
myobj.__count__ = function() { return ... }
myobj.__count__.toString = function() { return this(); }
}
This way, any time you reference myobj.__count__ the function will fire and recalculate.
From Object.defineProperty():
Object.defineProperty(obj, prop, descriptor)
You can either add it to all your objects:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "length", {
enumerable: false,
get: function() {
return Object.keys(this).length;
}
});
Or a single object:
var myObj = {};
Object.defineProperty(myObj, "length", {
enumerable: false,
get: function() {
return Object.keys(this).length;
}
});
Example:
var myObj = {};
myObj.name = "John Doe";
myObj.email = "leaked#example.com";
myObj.length; // Output: 2
Added that way, it won't be displayed in for..in loops:
for(var i in myObj) {
console.log(i + ": " + myObj[i]);
}
Output:
name: John Doe
email: leaked#example.com
Note: it does not work in browsers before Internet Explorer 9.
For those who have Underscore.js included in their project you can do:
_({a:'', b:''}).size() // => 2
or functional style:
_.size({a:'', b:''}) // => 2
How I've solved this problem is to build my own implementation of a basic list which keeps a record of how many items are stored in the object. It’s very simple. Something like this:
function BasicList()
{
var items = {};
this.count = 0;
this.add = function(index, item)
{
items[index] = item;
this.count++;
}
this.remove = function (index)
{
delete items[index];
this.count--;
}
this.get = function(index)
{
if (undefined === index)
return items;
else
return items[index];
}
}
For those that have Ext JS 4 in their project, you can do:
Ext.Object.getSize(myobj);
The advantage of this is that it'll work on all Ext JS compatible browsers (Internet Explorer 6 - Internet Explorer 8 included). However, I believe the running time is no better than O(n) though, as with other suggested solutions.
You can use:
Object.keys(objectName).length;
and
Object.values(objectName).length;
The OP didn't specify if the object is a nodeList. If it is, then you can just use the length method on it directly. Example:
buttons = document.querySelectorAll('[id=button)) {
console.log('Found ' + buttons.length + ' on the screen');
If jQuery in previous answers does not work, then try
$(Object.Item).length
I try to make it available to all objects like this:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype,
"length",
{
get() {
if (!Object.keys) {
Object.keys = function (obj) {
var keys = [],k;
for (k in obj) {
if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, k)) {
keys.push(k);
}
}
return keys;
};
}
return Object.keys(this).length;
},});
console.log({"Name":"Joe", "Age":26}.length) // Returns 2