I'm re-learning JavaScript at the moment.
My tutor told me today that in JavaScript, "everything is an object". In fact, using a for-in loop, you can iterate over an object's properties just like you can over an array's elements.
I now have (yet another) naive question: If everything in JavaScript is an Object, why do people "bother" using Arrays?
My first guess is there must be methods on Array that aren't available on Object (which a quick and superficial glance at MDN seems to confirm), and Arrays can be indexed (i.e. myArray[i]) (and have a length). But is that the whole story? Or is there some performance gain to be had by using the built-in Array (object) data type?
Arrays are an object type. (as are functions, object etc).
They have internal counter and push and pop states among other things. And they have many uses (to keep collections of data for one).
If you really want to reimplement that kol hakavod (go right ahead).
It is a fun project though to try to re-implement a js array on your own.
Simply put, an Array is an Object, but an Object is not an Array. The same is true for other types as well, such as Date, RegExp and so on.
You could strip the language of many native features and still have the exact same solution scope boundaries (you could solve the exact same set of problems), but you'd repeat yourself over and over implementing very basic objects. Additionally, different code bases would use different implementations of these types and you'd loose compatibility and interoperability.
Having certain types natively implemented makes using the language easier, more robust, more explicit and more performant.
On top of all that, languages as a whole (and JavaScript in particular) strive to conform to well known practices - it makes adopting the language easier and porting existing code simpler and faster.
Related
I was happily using Map for indexed accessed everywhere in my JavaScript codebase, but I've just stumbled upon this benchmark: https://stackoverflow.com/a/54385459/365104
I've re-created it here as well: https://jsben.ch/HOU3g
What benchmark is doing is basically filling a map with 1M elements, then iterating over them.
I'd expect the results for Map and Object to be on par, but they differ drastically - in favor of Object.
Is this expected behavior? Can it be explained? Is it because of the ordering requirement? Or because map is doing some key hashing? Or just because Map allows any object as key (I'd expect it using pointer address for key then, which does not need any hashing)? What is the difference between the Map and Object indexing algorithms?
This is quite unexpected and discouraging - basically I'll have to revert back to the old-school "object as map" coding style.
Update #1
As suggested in comments, the Object might be optimized to Array (since it is indexed by integer, starting from the zero).
Changing the iteration order from size to 0 - Object is still 2x faster. When using strings as index, Map performs 2x better.
(V8 developer here.)
I'll have to revert back to the old-school "object as map" coding style.
If you do that, you will have fallen victim to a misleading microbenchmark.
In the very special case of using consecutive integers as keys, a plain Object will be faster, yes. Nothing beats a contiguous array in that scenario. So if the "indexed accesses everywhere in your codebase" that you mentioned are indeed using index sets like the integers from 0 to 1M, then using an Object or Array is a good idea. But that's a special case. If the index space is sparse, things will already look different.
In the general case of using arbitrary strings in random order, a Map will perform significantly better than an Object. Even more importantly, the way such object property accesses are handled (in V8, and quite possibly in other engines too) has non-local effects: if one function puts excessive stress on the slow path of the object property lookup handling system, then that will likely slow down some other functions relying on that same slow path for their property accesses.
The fundamental reason is that engines optimize different things for different usage patterns. An engine could implement Objects and Maps pretty much the same under the hood; but that wouldn't be the ideal behavior, because different usage patterns benefit from different internal representations and implementation choices. So engines allow you to provide them with a hint: if you use a Map, the engine will know that you're planning to use the thing as a map (duh!), where random keys will come and go. If you use an Object, then the engine will (at least at first) assume that you want the set of optimizations that work best for your average object, where the set of properties is fairly small and static. If you use an Array (or Object with only integer properties, which is nearly the same thing in JS), then you're making it easy for the engine to give you fast integer-indexed accesses.
Using "x" + i as key is a good suggestion to demonstrate how quickly a microbenchmark can be changed so it appears to produce opposite results. But here's a spoiler: if you do (only) this modification, then a large part of what you're measuring will be number-to-string conversion and string internalization, not Map/Object access performance itself.
Beware of microbenchmarks; they are misleading. You really have to analyze them quite deeply (by profiling, and/or by inspecting generated code, and/or by tracing other engine internals) to be sure that they're measuring what you think they're measuring, and hence are producing results that are telling you what you think they're telling you.
In general, it is strongly recommended to use representative test cases for performance measurements. Ideally, your app itself; or by extracting a realistic part of it into a testcase operating on realistic data. And if you can't measure a difference between two implementation choices with a stress test for your entire production app, then it's not a difference worth worrying about it. With a microbenchmark (i.e. a couple of artificially crafted lines), I can "prove" almost anything that doesn't apply to the general case.
Objects in JavaScript can be used as Hashtable
(the key must be String)
Is it perform well as Hashtable the data structure?
I mean , does it implemented as Hashtable behind the scene?
Update: (1) I changed HashMap to hashtable (2) I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?
Update 2 : I understand, I just wonder how V8 and the Firefox JS VM implements the Object.properties getters/setters?
V8 doesn't implement Object properties access as hashtable, it actually implement it in a better way (performance wise)
So how does it work? "V8 does not use dynamic lookup to access properties. Instead, V8 dynamically creates hidden classes behind the scenes" - that make the access to properties almost as fast as accessing properties of C++ objects.
Why? because in fixed class each property can be found on a specific fixed offset location..
So in general accessing property of an object in V8 is faster than Hashtable..
I'm not sure how it works on other VMs
More info can be found here: https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
You can also read more regarding Hashtable in JS here:(my blog) http://simplenotions.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/javascript-hashtable/
"I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?"
I am no expert, but I can't think of any reason why a language spec would detail exactly how its features must be implemented internally. Such a constraint would have absolutely no purpose, since it does not impact the functioning of the language in any way other than performance.
In fact, this is absolutely correct, and is in fact the implementation-independence of the ECMA-262 spec is specifically described in section 8.6.2 of the spec:
"The descriptions in these tables indicate their behaviour for native
ECMAScript objects, unless stated otherwise in this document for particular kinds of native ECMAScript objects. Host objects may support these internal properties with any implementation-dependent behaviour as long as it is consistent with the specific host object restrictions stated in this document"
"Host objects may implement these internal methods in any manner unless specified otherwise;"
The word "hash" appears nowhere in the entire ECMA-262 specification.
(original, continued)
The implementations of JavaScript in, say, Internet Explorer 6.0 and Google Chrome's V8 have almost nothing in common, but (more or less) both conform to the same spec.
If you want to know how a specific JavaScript interpreter does something, you should research that engine specifically.
Hashtables are an efficient way to create cross references. They are not the only way. Some engines may optimize the storage for small sets (for which the overhead of a hashtable may be less efficient) for example.
At the end of the day, all you need to know is, they work. There may be faster ways to create lookup tables of large sets, using ajax, or even in memory. For example see the interesting discussion on this post from John Reseig's blog about using a trie data structure.
But that's neither here nor there. Your choice of whether to use this, or native JS objects, should not be driven by information about how JS implements objects. It should be driven only by performance comparison: how does each method scale. This is information you will get by doing performance tests, not by just knowing something about the JS engine implementation.
Most modern JS engines use pretty similar technique to speed up the object property access. The technique is based on so called hidden classes, or shapes. It's important to understand how this optimization works to write efficient JS code.
JS object looks like a dictionary, so why not use one to store the properties? Hash table has O(1) access complexity, it looks like a good solution. Actually, first JS engines have implemented objects this way. But in static typed languages, like C++ or Java a class instance property access is lightning fast. In such languages a class instance is just a segment of memory, end every property has its own constant offset, so to get the property value we just need to take the instance pointer and add the offset to it. In other words, in compile time an expression like this point.x is just replaced by its address in memory.
May be we can implement some similar technique in JS? But how? Let's look at a simple JS function:
function getX(point) {
return point.x;
}
How to get the point.x value? The first problem here is that we don't have a class (or shape) which describes the point. But we can calculate one, that is what modern JS engines do. Most of JS objects at runtime have a shape which is bound to the object. The shape describes properties of the object and where these properties values are stored. It's very similar to how a class definition describes the class in C++ or Java. It's a pretty big question, how the Shape of an object is calculated, I won't describe it here. I recommend this article which contains a great explanation of the shapes in general, and this post which explains how the things are implemented in V8. The most important thing you should know about the shapes is that all objects with the same properties which are added in the same order will have the same shape. There are few exceptions, for example if an object has a lot of properties which are frequently changed, or if you delete some of the object properties using delete operator, the object will be switched into dictionary mode and won't have a shape.
Now, let's imagine that the point object has an array of property values, and we have a shape attached to it, which describes where the x value in this property array is stored. But there is another problem - we can pass any object to the function, it's not even necessary that the object has the x property. This problem is solved by the technique called Inline caching. It's pretty simple, when getX() is executed the first time, it remembers the shape of the point and the result of the x lookup. When the function is called second time, it compares the shape of the point with the previous one. If the shape matches no lookup is required, we can take the previous lookup result.
The primary takeaway is that all objects which describe the same thing should have the same shape, i.e. they should have the same set of properties which are added in the same order. It also explains why it's better to always initialize object properties, even if they are undefined by default, here is a great explanation of the problem.
Relative resources:
JavaScript engine fundamentals: Shapes and Inline Caches and a YouTube video
A tour of V8: object representation
Fast properties in V8
JavaScript Engines Hidden Classes (and Why You Should Keep Them in Mind)
Should I put default values of attributes on the prototype to save space?
this article explains how they are implemented in V8, the engine used by Node.js and most versions of Google Chrome
https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
apparently the "tactic" can change over time, depending on the number of properties, going from an array of named values to a dictionary.
v8 also takes the type into account, a number or string will not be treated in the same way as an object (or function, a type of object)
if i understand this correctly a property access frequently, for example in a loop, will be cached.
v8 optimises code on the fly by observing what its actually doing, and how often
v8 will identify the objects with the same set of named properties, added in the same order (like a class constructor would do, or a repetitive bit of JSON, and handle them in the same way.
see the article for more details, then apply at google for a job :)
Objects in JavaScript can be used as Hashtable
(the key must be String)
Is it perform well as Hashtable the data structure?
I mean , does it implemented as Hashtable behind the scene?
Update: (1) I changed HashMap to hashtable (2) I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?
Update 2 : I understand, I just wonder how V8 and the Firefox JS VM implements the Object.properties getters/setters?
V8 doesn't implement Object properties access as hashtable, it actually implement it in a better way (performance wise)
So how does it work? "V8 does not use dynamic lookup to access properties. Instead, V8 dynamically creates hidden classes behind the scenes" - that make the access to properties almost as fast as accessing properties of C++ objects.
Why? because in fixed class each property can be found on a specific fixed offset location..
So in general accessing property of an object in V8 is faster than Hashtable..
I'm not sure how it works on other VMs
More info can be found here: https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
You can also read more regarding Hashtable in JS here:(my blog) http://simplenotions.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/javascript-hashtable/
"I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?"
I am no expert, but I can't think of any reason why a language spec would detail exactly how its features must be implemented internally. Such a constraint would have absolutely no purpose, since it does not impact the functioning of the language in any way other than performance.
In fact, this is absolutely correct, and is in fact the implementation-independence of the ECMA-262 spec is specifically described in section 8.6.2 of the spec:
"The descriptions in these tables indicate their behaviour for native
ECMAScript objects, unless stated otherwise in this document for particular kinds of native ECMAScript objects. Host objects may support these internal properties with any implementation-dependent behaviour as long as it is consistent with the specific host object restrictions stated in this document"
"Host objects may implement these internal methods in any manner unless specified otherwise;"
The word "hash" appears nowhere in the entire ECMA-262 specification.
(original, continued)
The implementations of JavaScript in, say, Internet Explorer 6.0 and Google Chrome's V8 have almost nothing in common, but (more or less) both conform to the same spec.
If you want to know how a specific JavaScript interpreter does something, you should research that engine specifically.
Hashtables are an efficient way to create cross references. They are not the only way. Some engines may optimize the storage for small sets (for which the overhead of a hashtable may be less efficient) for example.
At the end of the day, all you need to know is, they work. There may be faster ways to create lookup tables of large sets, using ajax, or even in memory. For example see the interesting discussion on this post from John Reseig's blog about using a trie data structure.
But that's neither here nor there. Your choice of whether to use this, or native JS objects, should not be driven by information about how JS implements objects. It should be driven only by performance comparison: how does each method scale. This is information you will get by doing performance tests, not by just knowing something about the JS engine implementation.
Most modern JS engines use pretty similar technique to speed up the object property access. The technique is based on so called hidden classes, or shapes. It's important to understand how this optimization works to write efficient JS code.
JS object looks like a dictionary, so why not use one to store the properties? Hash table has O(1) access complexity, it looks like a good solution. Actually, first JS engines have implemented objects this way. But in static typed languages, like C++ or Java a class instance property access is lightning fast. In such languages a class instance is just a segment of memory, end every property has its own constant offset, so to get the property value we just need to take the instance pointer and add the offset to it. In other words, in compile time an expression like this point.x is just replaced by its address in memory.
May be we can implement some similar technique in JS? But how? Let's look at a simple JS function:
function getX(point) {
return point.x;
}
How to get the point.x value? The first problem here is that we don't have a class (or shape) which describes the point. But we can calculate one, that is what modern JS engines do. Most of JS objects at runtime have a shape which is bound to the object. The shape describes properties of the object and where these properties values are stored. It's very similar to how a class definition describes the class in C++ or Java. It's a pretty big question, how the Shape of an object is calculated, I won't describe it here. I recommend this article which contains a great explanation of the shapes in general, and this post which explains how the things are implemented in V8. The most important thing you should know about the shapes is that all objects with the same properties which are added in the same order will have the same shape. There are few exceptions, for example if an object has a lot of properties which are frequently changed, or if you delete some of the object properties using delete operator, the object will be switched into dictionary mode and won't have a shape.
Now, let's imagine that the point object has an array of property values, and we have a shape attached to it, which describes where the x value in this property array is stored. But there is another problem - we can pass any object to the function, it's not even necessary that the object has the x property. This problem is solved by the technique called Inline caching. It's pretty simple, when getX() is executed the first time, it remembers the shape of the point and the result of the x lookup. When the function is called second time, it compares the shape of the point with the previous one. If the shape matches no lookup is required, we can take the previous lookup result.
The primary takeaway is that all objects which describe the same thing should have the same shape, i.e. they should have the same set of properties which are added in the same order. It also explains why it's better to always initialize object properties, even if they are undefined by default, here is a great explanation of the problem.
Relative resources:
JavaScript engine fundamentals: Shapes and Inline Caches and a YouTube video
A tour of V8: object representation
Fast properties in V8
JavaScript Engines Hidden Classes (and Why You Should Keep Them in Mind)
Should I put default values of attributes on the prototype to save space?
this article explains how they are implemented in V8, the engine used by Node.js and most versions of Google Chrome
https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
apparently the "tactic" can change over time, depending on the number of properties, going from an array of named values to a dictionary.
v8 also takes the type into account, a number or string will not be treated in the same way as an object (or function, a type of object)
if i understand this correctly a property access frequently, for example in a loop, will be cached.
v8 optimises code on the fly by observing what its actually doing, and how often
v8 will identify the objects with the same set of named properties, added in the same order (like a class constructor would do, or a repetitive bit of JSON, and handle them in the same way.
see the article for more details, then apply at google for a job :)
Objects in JavaScript can be used as Hashtable
(the key must be String)
Is it perform well as Hashtable the data structure?
I mean , does it implemented as Hashtable behind the scene?
Update: (1) I changed HashMap to hashtable (2) I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?
Update 2 : I understand, I just wonder how V8 and the Firefox JS VM implements the Object.properties getters/setters?
V8 doesn't implement Object properties access as hashtable, it actually implement it in a better way (performance wise)
So how does it work? "V8 does not use dynamic lookup to access properties. Instead, V8 dynamically creates hidden classes behind the scenes" - that make the access to properties almost as fast as accessing properties of C++ objects.
Why? because in fixed class each property can be found on a specific fixed offset location..
So in general accessing property of an object in V8 is faster than Hashtable..
I'm not sure how it works on other VMs
More info can be found here: https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
You can also read more regarding Hashtable in JS here:(my blog) http://simplenotions.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/javascript-hashtable/
"I guess most of the browser implement it the same, if not why not? is there any requirement how to implement it in the ECMAScript specs?"
I am no expert, but I can't think of any reason why a language spec would detail exactly how its features must be implemented internally. Such a constraint would have absolutely no purpose, since it does not impact the functioning of the language in any way other than performance.
In fact, this is absolutely correct, and is in fact the implementation-independence of the ECMA-262 spec is specifically described in section 8.6.2 of the spec:
"The descriptions in these tables indicate their behaviour for native
ECMAScript objects, unless stated otherwise in this document for particular kinds of native ECMAScript objects. Host objects may support these internal properties with any implementation-dependent behaviour as long as it is consistent with the specific host object restrictions stated in this document"
"Host objects may implement these internal methods in any manner unless specified otherwise;"
The word "hash" appears nowhere in the entire ECMA-262 specification.
(original, continued)
The implementations of JavaScript in, say, Internet Explorer 6.0 and Google Chrome's V8 have almost nothing in common, but (more or less) both conform to the same spec.
If you want to know how a specific JavaScript interpreter does something, you should research that engine specifically.
Hashtables are an efficient way to create cross references. They are not the only way. Some engines may optimize the storage for small sets (for which the overhead of a hashtable may be less efficient) for example.
At the end of the day, all you need to know is, they work. There may be faster ways to create lookup tables of large sets, using ajax, or even in memory. For example see the interesting discussion on this post from John Reseig's blog about using a trie data structure.
But that's neither here nor there. Your choice of whether to use this, or native JS objects, should not be driven by information about how JS implements objects. It should be driven only by performance comparison: how does each method scale. This is information you will get by doing performance tests, not by just knowing something about the JS engine implementation.
Most modern JS engines use pretty similar technique to speed up the object property access. The technique is based on so called hidden classes, or shapes. It's important to understand how this optimization works to write efficient JS code.
JS object looks like a dictionary, so why not use one to store the properties? Hash table has O(1) access complexity, it looks like a good solution. Actually, first JS engines have implemented objects this way. But in static typed languages, like C++ or Java a class instance property access is lightning fast. In such languages a class instance is just a segment of memory, end every property has its own constant offset, so to get the property value we just need to take the instance pointer and add the offset to it. In other words, in compile time an expression like this point.x is just replaced by its address in memory.
May be we can implement some similar technique in JS? But how? Let's look at a simple JS function:
function getX(point) {
return point.x;
}
How to get the point.x value? The first problem here is that we don't have a class (or shape) which describes the point. But we can calculate one, that is what modern JS engines do. Most of JS objects at runtime have a shape which is bound to the object. The shape describes properties of the object and where these properties values are stored. It's very similar to how a class definition describes the class in C++ or Java. It's a pretty big question, how the Shape of an object is calculated, I won't describe it here. I recommend this article which contains a great explanation of the shapes in general, and this post which explains how the things are implemented in V8. The most important thing you should know about the shapes is that all objects with the same properties which are added in the same order will have the same shape. There are few exceptions, for example if an object has a lot of properties which are frequently changed, or if you delete some of the object properties using delete operator, the object will be switched into dictionary mode and won't have a shape.
Now, let's imagine that the point object has an array of property values, and we have a shape attached to it, which describes where the x value in this property array is stored. But there is another problem - we can pass any object to the function, it's not even necessary that the object has the x property. This problem is solved by the technique called Inline caching. It's pretty simple, when getX() is executed the first time, it remembers the shape of the point and the result of the x lookup. When the function is called second time, it compares the shape of the point with the previous one. If the shape matches no lookup is required, we can take the previous lookup result.
The primary takeaway is that all objects which describe the same thing should have the same shape, i.e. they should have the same set of properties which are added in the same order. It also explains why it's better to always initialize object properties, even if they are undefined by default, here is a great explanation of the problem.
Relative resources:
JavaScript engine fundamentals: Shapes and Inline Caches and a YouTube video
A tour of V8: object representation
Fast properties in V8
JavaScript Engines Hidden Classes (and Why You Should Keep Them in Mind)
Should I put default values of attributes on the prototype to save space?
this article explains how they are implemented in V8, the engine used by Node.js and most versions of Google Chrome
https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties
apparently the "tactic" can change over time, depending on the number of properties, going from an array of named values to a dictionary.
v8 also takes the type into account, a number or string will not be treated in the same way as an object (or function, a type of object)
if i understand this correctly a property access frequently, for example in a loop, will be cached.
v8 optimises code on the fly by observing what its actually doing, and how often
v8 will identify the objects with the same set of named properties, added in the same order (like a class constructor would do, or a repetitive bit of JSON, and handle them in the same way.
see the article for more details, then apply at google for a job :)
First off: I'm using a rather obscure implementation of javascript embedded as a scripting engine for Adobe InDesign CS3. This implementation sometimes diverges from "standard" javascript, hence my problem.
I'm using John Resig's jsdiff library (source here) to compare selections of text between two documents. jsdiff uses vanilla objects as associative arrays to map a word from the text to another object. (See the "ns" and "os" variables in jsdiff.js, around line 129.)
My headaches start when the word "reflect" comes up in the text. "reflect" is a default, read-only property on all objects. When jsdiff tries to assign a value on the associative array to ns['reflect'], everything explodes.
My question: is there a way around this? Is there a way to do a hash table in javascript without using the obvious vanilla object?
Ground rules: switching scripting engines isn't an option. :)
You might be "asking the wrong question" (as Raymond Chen would say); rather than trying to avoid using the vanilla objects, try changing the way the associative array members are named.
The way I'd try to approach this: instead of there being an array member ns["reflect"], change the way that jsdiff builds the arrays so that the member is ns["_reflect"] or some other variation on that.
If the JS implementation you're using supports the hasOwnProperty method for objects, you can use it to test whether a property has explicitly been set for an object or the property is inherited from its prototype. Example:
if(object.hasOwnProperty('testProperty')){
// do something
}
Well given objects in javascript are just associative arrays, there really isn't another built in solution for a hash. You might be able to create your own psuedo hashtable by wrapping a class around some arrays although there will probably be a significant performance hit with the manual work involved.
Just a side note I haven't really used or looked at the jsdiff library so I can't offer any valid insight as per tips or tricks.