We Keep Coding

Is there an analogous way to create an array without its prototype?

Is there something analogous to Object.create(null), where the object has no prototype, for an Array?
var someArray = [];
someArray.__proto__ = null;

No, there is no such thing like Array.create that creates arrays without a prototype. However, __proto__ is despised (it's legacy only), the proper way would be
var someWeirdArray = Object.setPrototypeOf([], null);
which also has the advantage of being a single expression.
And just a word of caution (that you hopefully don't need): Don't do this! There's no good reason.

I know this is old, but for future viewers, if you want to have an array without the weight associated with the prototype, just use Object.create(null) and key it with numbers.
const myEmptyObj = Object.create(null)
myEmptyObj[0] = 'someStuff'
myEmptyObj[1] = 'someOtherStuff'
you might even be able to convince array methods to work on it. I haven't tried this but:
const arrMap = (fn, arr) => Array.prototype.map.call(arr, fn)
where arr is the object in question and fn is your map function...

array like object using array methods [duplicate]

I was looking at some snippets of code, and I found multiple elements calling a function over a node list with a forEach applied to an empty array.
For example I have something like:
[].forEach.call( document.querySelectorAll('a'), function(el) {
// whatever with the current node
});
but I can't understand how it works. Can anyone explain me the behaviour of the empty array in front of the forEach and how the call works?

[] is an array.
This array isn't used at all.
It's being put on the page, because using an array gives you access to array prototypes, like .forEach.
This is just faster than typing Array.prototype.forEach.call(...);
Next, forEach is a function which takes a function as an input...
[1,2,3].forEach(function (num) { console.log(num); });
...and for each element in this (where this is array-like, in that it has a length and you can access its parts like this[1]) it will pass three things:
the element in the array
the index of the element (third element would pass 2)
a reference to the array
Lastly, .call is a prototype which functions have (it's a function which gets called on other functions).
.call will take its first argument and replace this inside of the regular function with whatever you passed call, as the first argument (undefined or null will use window in everyday JS, or will be whatever you passed, if in "strict-mode"). The rest of the arguments will be passed to the original function.
[1, 2, 3].forEach.call(["a", "b", "c"], function (item, i, arr) {
console.log(i + ": " + item);
});
// 0: "a"
// 1: "b"
// 2: "c"
Therefore, you're creating a quick way to call the forEach function, and you're changing this from the empty array to a list of all <a> tags, and for each <a> in-order, you are calling the function provided.
EDIT
Logical Conclusion / Cleanup
Below, there's a link to an article suggesting that we scrap attempts at functional programming, and stick to manual, inline looping, every time, because this solution is hack-ish and unsightly.
I'd say that while .forEach is less helpful than its counterparts, .map(transformer), .filter(predicate), .reduce(combiner, initialValue), it still serves purposes when all you really want to do is modify the outside world (not the array), n-times, while having access to either arr[i] or i.
So how do we deal with the disparity, as Motto is clearly a talented and knowledgeable guy, and I would like to imagine that I know what I'm doing/where I'm going (now and then... ...other times it's head-first learning)?
The answer is actually quite simple, and something Uncle Bob and Sir Crockford would both facepalm, due to the oversight:
clean it up.
function toArray (arrLike) { // or asArray(), or array(), or *whatever*
return [].slice.call(arrLike);
}
var checked = toArray(checkboxes).filter(isChecked);
checked.forEach(listValues);
Now, if you're questioning whether you need to do this, yourself, the answer may well be no...
This exact thing is done by... ...every(?) library with higher-order features these days.
If you're using lodash or underscore or even jQuery, they're all going to have a way of taking a set of elements, and performing an action n-times.
If you aren't using such a thing, then by all means, write your own.
lib.array = (arrLike, start, end) => [].slice.call(arrLike, start, end);
lib.extend = function (subject) {
var others = lib.array(arguments, 1);
return others.reduce(appendKeys, subject);
};
Update for ES6(ES2015) and Beyond
Not only is a slice( )/array( )/etc helper method going to make life easier for people who want to use lists just like they use arrays (as they should), but for the people who have the luxury of operating in ES6+ browsers of the relatively-near future, or of "transpiling" in Babel today, you have language features built in, which make this type of thing unnecessary.
function countArgs (...allArgs) {
return allArgs.length;
}
function logArgs (...allArgs) {
return allArgs.forEach(arg => console.log(arg));
}
function extend (subject, ...others) { /* return ... */ }
var nodeArray = [ ...nodeList1, ...nodeList2 ];
Super-clean, and very useful.
Look up the Rest and Spread operators; try them out at the BabelJS site; if your tech stack is in order, use them in production with Babel and a build step.
There's no good reason not to be able to use the transform from non-array into array... ...just don't make a mess of your code doing nothing but pasting that same ugly line, everywhere.

The querySelectorAll method returns a NodeList, which is similar to an array, but it's not quite an array. Therefore, it doesn't have a forEach method (which array objects inherit via Array.prototype).
Since a NodeList is similar to an array, array methods will actually work on it, so by using [].forEach.call you are invoking the Array.prototype.forEach method in the context of the NodeList, as if you had been able to simply do yourNodeList.forEach(/*...*/).
Note that the empty array literal is just a shortcut to the expanded version, which you will probably see quite often too:
Array.prototype.forEach.call(/*...*/);

The other answers have explained this code very well, so I'll just add a suggestion.
This is a good example of code that should be refactored for simplicity and clarity. Instead of using [].forEach.call() or Array.prototype.forEach.call() every time you do this, make a simple function out of it:
function forEach( list, callback ) {
Array.prototype.forEach.call( list, callback );
}
Now you can call this function instead of the more complicated and obscure code:
forEach( document.querySelectorAll('a'), function( el ) {
// whatever with the current node
});

It can be better written using
Array.prototype.forEach.call( document.querySelectorAll('a'), function(el) {
});
What is does is document.querySelectorAll('a') returns an object similar to an array, but it does not inherit from the Array type.
So we calls the forEach method from the Array.prototype object with the context as the value returned by document.querySelectorAll('a')

[].forEach.call( document.querySelectorAll('a'), function(el) {
// whatever with the current node
});
It is basically the same as:
var arr = document.querySelectorAll('a');
arr.forEach(function(el) {
// whatever with the current node
});

Want to update on this old question:
The reason to use [].foreach.call() to loop through elements in the modern browsers is mostly over. We can use document.querySelectorAll("a").foreach() directly.
NodeList objects are collections of nodes, usually returned by
properties such as Node.childNodes and methods such as
document.querySelectorAll().
Although NodeList is not an Array, it is possible to iterate over it
with forEach(). It can also be converted to a real Array using
Array.from().
However, some older browsers have not implemented NodeList.forEach()
nor Array.from(). This can be circumvented by using
Array.prototype.forEach() — see this document's Example.

Lots of good info on this page (see answer+answer+comment), but I recently had the same question as the OP, and it took some digging to get the whole picture. So, here's a short version:
The goal is to use Array methods on an array-like NodeList that doesn't have those methods itself.
An older pattern co-opted Array's methods via Function.call(), and used an array literal ([]) rather than than Array.prototype because it was shorter to type:
[].forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll('a'), a => {})
A newer pattern (post ECMAScript 2015) is to use Array.from():
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('a')).forEach(a => {})

An empty array has a property forEach in its prototype which is a Function object. (The empty array is just an easy way to obtain a reference to the forEach function that all Array objects have.) Function objects, in turn, have a call property which is also a function. When you invoke a Function's call function, it runs the function with the given arguments. The first argument becomes this in the called function.
You can find documentation for the call function here. Documentation for forEach is here.

Just add one line:
NodeList.prototype.forEach = HTMLCollection.prototype.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach;
And voila!
document.querySelectorAll('a').forEach(function(el) {
// whatever with the current node
});
Enjoy :—)
Warning: NodeList is a global class. Don't use this recomendation if you writing public library. However it's very convenient way for increasing self-efficacy when you work on website or node.js app.

Just a quick and dirty solution I always end up using. I wouldn't touch prototypes, just as good practice. Of course, there are a lot of ways to make this better, but you get the idea.
const forEach = (array, callback) => {
if (!array || !array.length || !callback) return
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
callback(array[i], i);
}
}
forEach(document.querySelectorAll('.a-class'), (item, index) => {
console.log(`Item: ${item}, index: ${index}`);
});

[] always returns a new array, it is equivalent to new Array() but is guaranteed to return an array because Array could be overwritten by the user whereas [] can not. So this is a safe way to get the prototype of Array, then as described, call is used to execute the function on the arraylike nodelist (this).
Calls a function with a given this value and arguments provided
individually. mdn

Norguard explained WHAT [].forEach.call() does and James Allardice WHY we do it: because querySelectorAll returns a NodeList that doesn't have a forEach method...
Unless you have modern browser like Chrome 51+, Firefox 50+, Opera 38, Safari 10.
If not you can add a Polyfill:
if (window.NodeList && !NodeList.prototype.forEach) {
NodeList.prototype.forEach = function (callback, thisArg) {
thisArg = thisArg || window;
for (var i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
callback.call(thisArg, this[i], i, this);
}
};
}

let's say you have : const myList= document.querySelectorAll("p");
This will return an list/array of all in your HTML.
Now Array.prototype.forEach.call(myList, myCallback)
is equivalent to [].forEach.call(myList, myCallback)
where 'myCallback' is a callback function.
You are basically running the callback function on each element of myList.
Hope this helped you!

I don't know if there is any restriction, but it works.
I turned the nodeList into an iterator object using the spread operator and mapped it:
let _btns = document.querySelectorAll('.btn');
[..._btns].map(function(elem, i) {
elem.addEventListener('click', function (e) {
console.log(elem.textContent);
})
})
.btn {
padding: 5px;
color:#fff;
background-color: darkred;
text-align:center;
color: white;
}
<button class="btn">button 1</button>
<button class="btn">button 2</button>

Array.from vs Array.prototype.map

So what is the difference between this two functions?
They both create new Array object. Only difference I found so far is that Array.from supports ArrayLike parameters. I don't see any reason why they just haven't added ArrayLike support for Array.prototype.map function.
Am I missing something?

The purpose of Array.from() is to take a non-array (but array-like) object and make a copy of it into an actual array. This then allows you to use ALL array methods on the copy including things beyond just iterating it such as .splice(), .sort(), .push(), .pop(), etc... which is obviously much more capable than just make .map() work with array-like things.

Array.map seems to be a bit more performant as well:
var a = () => [{"count": 3},{"count": 4},{"count": 5}].map(item => item.count);
var b = () => Array.from([{"count": 3},{"count": 4},{"count": 5}], x => x.count);
var iterations = 1000000;
console.time('Function #1');
for(var i = 0; i < iterations; i++ ){
b();
};
console.timeEnd('Function #1')
console.time('Function #2');
for(var i = 0; i < iterations; i++ ){
a();
};
console.timeEnd('Function #2')
Running this code using Chrome (Version 65.0.3325.181) on this page gave me the follow results:
Function #1: 520.591064453125ms
Function #2: 33.622802734375ms

Static method vs instance method
I know a lot of time has passed since the question was asked. A lot of good things have been said. But I would like to add some more. If we try to determine the nature of the two methods we can say that Array.from
has no relation to any instance of Array. It is static method like Array.isArray or Array.of. You also have static properties like length for the Array object. As a static method Array.from can not be Called from instance.
For example:
var indexes=[0,1,2,3]
index.from()
>>> index.from is not a function
In the other hand if you write
Array.map() you will end up with a Array.map is not a function. It is because Array.prototype.map Exist for the instance of array. In our little example indexes is an instance of Array then we use map on it.
Example
var indexes=[0,1,2,3]
function doubleIt(x){
return 2*x;
}
indexes.map(doubleIt);
With array.from it shoud be something like
Array.from(indexes, doubleIt)
I used quokka plugin on vscode to evaluate performance on vs code in a windows machine. It is not real case of performance benchmarking. But it can help to have an idea. I came up with the same conclusion as #rileynet map seem more performant but only for large array.
var N=10
var tabIndex=[ ...Array(N).keys()]
function doubleIt(x){
return 2*x;
}
tabIndex.map(doubleIt);/*?.*/ 0.040ms
Array.from(tabIndex, doubleIt)/*?.*/ 0.009ms
if N=100
tabIndex.map(doubleIt);/*?.*/ 0.052ms
Array.from(tabIndex, doubleIt)/*?.*/ 0.041ms
if N=1000
tabIndex.map(doubleIt);/*?.*/ 0.228ms
Array.from(tabIndex, doubleIt)/*?.*/ 0.339ms
if N=10000
tabIndex.map(doubleIt);/*?.*/ 2.662ms
Array.from(tabIndex, doubleIt)/*?.*/ 1.847ms
N=100000
tabIndex.map(doubleIt);/*?.*/ 3.538ms
Array.from(tabIndex, doubleIt)/*?.*/ 11.742ms

Making Array.prototype the prototype object for every single array-like "Class" in JS (more importantly, in DOM, where most of the 'array-like' objects live) would be a potential mistake.
What would a .reduce( ) on a list of HTML elements/attributes look like?
Array.from is the official version of [].slice.call(arrayLike); with the added benefit of not having to create an unused array, just to create an array.
So really, Array.from can be polyfilled with function (arrLike) { return [].slice.call(arrLike); }, and minus native-implementation speed/memory improvements, it's the same result.
This has little to do with map|reduce|filter|some|every|find, which are the keys to living a long and happy life, without the need of micromanaging loops to get things done.

Clean way to map an array in node.js or JavaScript

Let's say I have a function and an array. I want to modify the array by applying the function to each entry in the array. The function does NOT modify the value directly; it returns a new value.
In pseudo-code,
for (entry in array) {
entry = function(entry);
}
There are a couple ways to do this that occurred to me:
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
arr[i] = fn(i);
}
Or, since I am using node.js and have underscore built in:
arr = _.map(arr, fn);
But this both seem a little clunky. The standard "for" block feels overly verbose, and the _.map function re-assigns the entire array so feels inefficient.
How would you do this?
Yes, I am aware I'm overthinking this :)

The Array#map() method.
var arr = arr.map(fn);
_.map() is probably implemented in the same way.

Using the push method or .length when adding to array?

What are the downsides to doing:
var myArray = [];
myArray[myArray.length] = val1;
myArray[myArray.length] = val2;
instead of:
var myArray = [];
myArray.push(val1);
myArray.push(val2);
I'm sure the push method is much more "acceptable", but are there any differences in functionality?

push is way faster, almost 300% faster.
Proof: http://jsperf.com/push-vs-length-test

Since arrays in JavaScript do not have holes the functionality of those two methods is equal. And yes, using .push() is much cleaner (and shorter).

I've generally thought length assignment was faster. Just found Index vs. push performance which backs that up; for my Chrome 14 browser anyway, over a single test run. However there is not much in it in Chrome.

There seems to be discrepancy on which test is faster among the varying JavaScript engines. The differences in speed may be negligible (unless an unholy amount of pushes are needed). In that case, the prudent developer should always err on the side of readability. In this case, in my opinion and the opinion of #TheifMaster is that [].push() is cleaner and it is easier to read. Maintenance of code is the most expensive part of coding.

As I tested, the first way is faster, I'm not sure why, keep researching. Also the ECMA doesn't mentioned which one is better, I think it is depending on how the browser vendor implements this.
var b = new Array();
var bd1 = new Date().getTime();
for(var i =0;i<1000000; i++){
b[b.length] = i;
};
alert(new Date().getTime()- bd1);
var a = new Array();
var ad1 = new Date().getTime();
for(var i =0;i<1000000; i++){
a.push(i);
};
alert(new Date().getTime()- ad1);

In JS there are 3 different ways you can add an element to the end of an array. All three have their different use cases.
1) a.push(v), a.push(v1,v2,v3), a.push(...[1,2,3,4]), a.push(..."test")
Push is not a very well thought function in JS. It returns the length of the resulting array. How silly. So you can never chain push() in functional programming unless you want to return the length at the very end. It should have returned a reference to the object it's called upon. I mean then it would still be possible to get the length if needed like a.push(..."idiot").length. Forget about push if you have intentions to do something functional.
2) a[a.length] = "something"
This is the biggest rival of a.push("something"). People fight over this. To me the only two differences are that
This one returns the value added to the end of the array
Only accepts single value. It's not as clever as push.
You shall use it if the returned value is of use to you.
3. a.concat(v), a.concat(v1,v2,v3), a.concat(...[1,2,3,4]), a.concat([1,2,3,4])
Concat is unbelievably handy. You can use it exactly like push. If you pass the arguments in array it will spread them to the end of the array it's called upon. If you pass them as separate arguments it will still do the same like a = a.concat([1,2,3],4,5,6); //returns [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] However don't do this.. not so reliable. It's better to pass all arguments in an array literal.
Best thing with concat is it will return a reference to the resulting array. So it's perfect to use it in functional programming and chaining.
Array.prototype.concat() is my preference.
4) A new push() proposal
Actually one other thing you can do is to overwrite the Array.prototype.push() function like;
Array.prototype.push = function(...args) {
return args.reduce(function(p,c) {
p[p.length] = c;
return p
}, this)
};
so that it perfectly returns a reference to the array it's called upon.

I have an updated benchmark here: jsbench.me
Feel free to check which is faster for your current engine. arr[arr.length] was about 40% faster than arr.push() on Chromium 86.