My Javascript timer is for people with a rubiks cube with generates a scramble (nevermind all this, but just to tell you I'm generating after each solve a new scramble will be generated) and my scrambles do actually have a while (true) statement. So that does crash my script, but it 95/100 times stops just before the script crashes but I don't wanna have any times.
Let me explain a bit more detailed about the problem.
Problem: javascript crashes because my script takes too long to generate a scramble.
Below you have 3 functions I use.
This function generates a scramble with the Fisher-Yates shuffle.
Timer.prototype.generateScramble = function(array) {
for (var i = array.length - 1; i > 0; i--) {
var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1));
var temp = array[i];
array[i] = array[j];
array[j] = temp;
}
return array;
};
This function validates the input e.g. I receive an array as the following:
Here I only have to check the first character. That's why I use the seconds [ ] notation. I don't want people get an F with an F2 e.g.
var scr = ["F","R","U","B","L","D","F2","R2","U2","B2","L2","D2","F'","R'","U'","B'","L'","D'"]
Timer.prototype.validateScramble2 = function(array) {
var last = array.length-1;
for (var i = 0; i < array.length-1; i++) {
if (array[i][0] == array[i+1][0]) {
return false;
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < array.length-2; i++) {
if (array[i][0] == array[i+2][0]) {
return false;
}
}
if (array[0][0] == [last][0]) {
return false;
}
return true;
};
The above functions are just waiting to be called. Well in the function below I use them.
Timer.prototype.updateScramble2 = function(scrambleArr, len, type) {
var self = this;
var scramble = '', j, updatedArr = [];
while (updatedArr.length < len) {
j = (Math.floor(Math.random() * scrambleArr.length));
updatedArr.push(scrambleArr[j]);
}
while (!self.validateScramble2(updatedArr)) {
updatedArr = self.generateScramble(updatedArr);
}
for (var i = 0; i < updatedArr.length; i++) {
scramble += updatedArr[i] + ' ';
}
scrambleDiv.innerHTML = scramble;
};
I assume you guys understand it but let me explain it briefly.
The first while-loop adds a random value from the given array(scrambleArr) into a new array called updatedArr.
The next while-loop calls the validateScramble2() function if there isn't in an array F next to an F2.
The for-loop adds them into a new variable added with a whitespace and then later we show the scramble in the div: scrambleDiv.innerHTML = scramble;
What do I need know after all this information?
Well I wanna know why my updateScramble2() functions lets my browser crash every time and what I do wrong and how I should do it.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but from the way your code looks, I think you have an infinite loop going on. It appears as if validateScramble2 always returns false which causes your second loop in updateScramble2 to perpetually run.
I suggest you insert a breakpoint in your code and inspect the values. You could also insert debugger; statements in your code, works the same way. Open dev tools prior to doing these.
A suggestion is instead of using loops, use a timer. This breaks up your loop into asynchronous iterations rather than synchronous. This allows the browser breathing space for other operations. Here's an example of a forEachAsync:
function forEachAsync(array, callback){
var i = 0;
var timer = setInterval(function(){
callback.call(null, array[i]);
if(++i >= array.length) clearInterval(timer);
}, 0);
}
forEachAsync([1,2,4], function(item){
console.log(item);
});
You can take this further and use Promises instead of callbacks.
Related
I ask this question again as user Cerbrus have marked the previous question as a duplicate of this question.
Can someone be so kind to show me how the question indicated by this user, should solve the code below? I can't find a match between those situations (even thought they are similar).
I need to pass a variable to a function inside a for loop. Here's an example:
var mainObj = [],
subArr = ['val1', 'val2'],
tmp;
for (var i = 0; i < subArr.length; i++) {
tmp = subArr[i];
mainObj.push({
key: function(varsFromLibrary) {
myFunc(tmp);
}
});
}
Here I have 2 problems:
why do i have to assign subArr[i] to tmp? Using myFunc(subArr[i]) will return that i is undefined?
why in myFunc i only receive the last value of subArr array?
UPDATE
I've updated the code as follows but i get TypeError: funcs[j] is not a function
var mainObj = [],
subArr = ['val1', 'val2'],
tmp,
funcs = [];
function createfunc(i) {
return function() { console.log("My value: " + i); };
}
for (var i = 0; i < subArr.length; i++) {
funcs[i] = createfunc(subArr[i]);
}
for (var j = 0; j < subArr.length; j++) {
tmp = subArr[i];
mainObj.push({
key: function(varsFromLibrary) {
funcs[j]();
}
});
}
Simply use let :
for (var i = 0; i < subArr.length; i++) {
let tmp = subArr[i];
mainObj.push({
key: function(varsFromLibrary) {
myFunc(tmp);
}
});
}
Or why cant you simply copy the value into the object?:
for (var i = 0; i < subArr.length; i++) {
mainObj.push({
tmp:subArr[i],
key: function(varsFromLibrary) {
myFunc(this.tmp);
}
});
}
Another try of explaining:
Lets imagine youre a byciclist. You want to measure your speed so you ask 10 friends of you to stand next to the route at certain points and to tell you your speed. Some pseudocode:
const friends = [];
var speed = 20;//youre really fast
for(var point = 1; point < 10; point++){
speed -= 2;//youre slowing down
friends.push({
ask(){
console.log(point, speed);
}
});
}
Now afterwards you stand at the last point 10 together with your friends and you ask them for the current speed and the point they stay at. What will they tell you? Exactly, they are all standing next to you at point 10 and your current speed is 0. You asked them for the current speed and not to remember the current speed. If you want them to remember it, they need to write it down:
friends.push({
speed,//every friend object has the current value stored
point,
ask(){ console.log(this.speed,this.point)}
});
Or you need to create 10 parallel universes your friends stay in, so if you ask them for your speed they will still see you driving next to them:
for(let point = 1; point < 10; point++){
let localspeed = (speed -= 2);//youre slowing down
why do i have to assign subArr[i] to tmp?
You don't. That isn't the solution proposed by the duplicate question.
Using myFunc(subArr[i]) will return that i is undefined?
i won't be undefined. It will be the same as subArr.length.
subArr[i] will be undefined, because subArr.length is the number of items in the array and the array is zero indexed.
why in myFunc i only receive the last value of subArr array?
Because that is the last value you copied to tmp before the loop ended.
As the high rated answer on the question you link to says, you need to copy i or subArr[i] to a new scope so it won't change next time you go around the loop.
I am learning javascript to enhance some of my daily work, and so I am learning the basics.
I am still pretty green with the syntax, but am picking up on the language pretty quickly.
What I am trying to understand is how i can create a terminating condition that is evaluating a function.
I know the coding is wrong here, which is what I am trying to fix - I attempted a bunch of different things, but I am having trouble evaluating the loop based on my product.
I tried using return to store the value each iteration, but every attempt resulted in the script flat out failing.
What I want the script to do is to stop the loop when my product reaches <=100.
The problem is, my research suggests that the loop criteria can ONLY be referencing the variable, i.
I'm stuck in terms of how to look at the resulting product as the terminating condition.
var one = 5;
var two = 10;
var end = 100;
function mult (one, two) {
var product = one * two;
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
for (var i = 1; i <= end; i++)
mult(i, two);
If you want your loop to terminate when the product is <= 100, use an if statement to decide whether you want to write a line.
I've changed some variable names to make it easier to understand.
/*var one = 5;*/ /*This is never being used*/
var ten = 10;
var end = 100;
function mult (a, b){
var product = a * b;
if (product <= 100){
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
}
for (var i = 1; i <= end; i++){
mult(i, ten);
}
"the loop criteria can ONLY be referencing the variable, i." that's false!
You can define multiple conditions in a for loop.
To access the 'product' variable after loop execution you can declare it in the outer scope of the mult() function (or you can rewrite the mult() function to returns the product variable).
Like this:
var two = 10;
var end = 100;
var someNumberGtThan100 = 100000;
var lastProduct = 0;
var product = 0;
function mult (one, two) {
lastProduct = product;
product = one * two;
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
for (var i = 1; i <= someNumberGtThan100 && product <= 100; i++) {
mult(i, two);
}
console.log(lastProduct); // 100
By using this condition you have to store the previous value in an auxiliary variable, because when 'product' reach the value of 100 the loop condition is still true, so the loop will be executed one time more.
I have created an utterly simple blackjack game that stores the first value of a shuffled array of cards into corresponding players' arrays, dealing them as actual hands. For some odd reason, I can't seem to find a way to execute the core part of the code multiple times without getting an infinite loop. For the time being, I have only tried running the quite commonplace "for" command which is meant for multiple statements, but just doesn't seem to work here.
The programm on its primitive form is as follows...
var dealerCards = [];
var playerCards = [];
var firstDeck = [];
function shuffle(o){
for(var j, x, i = o.length; i; j = Math.floor(Math.random() * i), x = o[--i], o[i] = o[j], o[j] = x);
return o;
}
function createShuffledDeckNumber(array, x) {
for (i = 0; i < 4*x; i++) {
array.push(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13);
}
shuffle(array);
}
function drawCard(playersHand, playerSoft, playerHard) {
playersHand.push(firstDeck[0]);
firstDeck.shift();
}
function checkDeckDrawOne(playersHand) {
if (firstDeck.length === 0) {
createShuffledDeckNumber(firstDeck, 1);
drawCard(playersHand);
}else{
for (i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
}
}
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
dealerCards = [];
playerCards = [];
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
console.log("dealerCards",dealerCards,"playerCards",playerCards);
console.log("firstDeckDrawn", firstDeck, "Number", firstDeck.length);
}
Additional Notes;
The presumed objective could be performing calculations to figure out the winner by imitating the effect of consecutive computing rounds based on a finite number of values stored in each player's array. Although, I've tried a seried of different things when it comes to emulating the real life circumstances of actually playing blackjack, this version seems to do just that, by also giving the programmer the ability to introduce counting systems like KO or HiLo. The main logic behind the whole thing is fairly simple; order x shuffled decks whenever a command that involves drawing a card is being executed unless the deck has at least one card.
It's rather fair to ponder why should I possibly bother creating multiple rounds in such a game. Reason is, that I want to create an autoplayer application that provides me with percentages on processed data.
Your variable i in function checkDeckDrawOne() has global scope, meaning it alters the value of i in the main loop:
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
dealerCards = [];
playerCards = [];
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
console.log("dealerCards",dealerCards,"playerCards",playerCards);
console.log("firstDeckDrawn", firstDeck, "Number", firstDeck.length);
}
Change this:
for (i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
to this:
for (var i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
although why you need a loop here anyway is baffling.
I want to cycle through an array and display each element individually, and then remove it. Sort of like this fiddle, but I don't want it to go forever.
I tried using jQuery because I thought it would be easier, but I am clearly missing something. Can anyone help?
Here is my attempt, but it just goes straight to the last element in the array.
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
var length = list.length;
for(i = 0; i < length; i++) {
$('#nums').html(list[i]).delay(750);
}
Oh, and I don't care if it's jQuery or vanilla JavaScript. Either is fine by me.
$(document).ready(function(){
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
var length = list.length;
var i = 0;
var ivl = setInterval( function () {
if (i < length) {
$('#nums').html(list[i]).delay(750);
i++;
}
else {
clearInterval(ivl);
}
}, 750);
});
The (pretty clever) example uses the fact that the modulus operator (%) gives you remainder, which is periodic, so you can use it to cycle through your array by taking the remainder of an infinitely increasing number divided by the length of your list.
If you want it to stop, however, you can just do a check to see if you've finished cycling through the list:
var list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];
var length = list.length;
var i = 0;
var finished = false;
function repeat() {
if (!finished) {
document.getElementById('nums').innerHTML = list[i % length];
i++;
if (i === length) {
finished = true;
}
} else {
clearInterval(interval);
}
}
var interval = setInterval(repeat, 750);
<div id="nums"></div>
Late to the party but wouldn't it be better to use setTimeout rather than setInterval just in case the code executed on each iteration takes longer than the interval duration? I mean, I know it's not an issue in this instance but it's just a better/safer way to do this sort of thing.
$(document).ready(function(){
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
var length = list.length;
var i = 0;
(function next(){
if (i < length){
$('#nums').html(list[i++]);
setTimeout(next,750);
}
})();
});
http://jsfiddle.net/zLexhdfp/3/
Is it possible to increase the time out limit for JavaScript?
If I have a script that executes for more than 20/30 seconds chrome will pop-up with the unresponsable page dialog.
Making a more efficient script won't help me because the script sometimes need to iterate through a function for a million or billion times
To split the function on steps/chunks and run those inside setInterval(function(){}).
This way page will be responsive, you will be able to notify user about progress of execution and you will get your job done.
UPDATE: Here is simple function that takes
worker function executing each iteration,
chunksz - number of iteration running in single chunk
maxit - total number of iterations.
function task(worker, chunksz, maxit)
{
var idx = 0;
var xint = null;
function exec_chunk()
{
for(var n = 0; n < chunksz; ++n)
{
if(idx >= maxit) { return; }
worker(idx++);
}
setTimeout(exec_chunk,1);
}
exec_chunk();
}
Here is an example : http://jsfiddle.net/Ed9wL/
As you see you get all iterations in order.
UPDATE2:
Say you have a loop:
for(var i=0; i<100000; ++i) { ... do something ... }
then you need to wrap body of the loop into a function and call the task above with it like this:
task(function(i){ ... do something ... },100, 100000);
or like this:
function loopBody(i){ ... do something ... }
task(loopBody,100, 100000);
When you have lots of processing to do client side, you need to split out your work into separate threads. The browser only has a single thread for handling user input (events) and for processing JS. If you're processing too much JS, without yielding, the UI becomes unresponsive and the browser is not happy.
How can you allow your script to yield? The new way is to use web workers http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ . This works by creating a separate thread to run your JS, thread thread does not access to the DOM and can be run concurrently.
However, this newer technology doesn't exist in all browsers. For older browsers, you can split up your work by having the script call itself through timeouts. Whenever a timeout occurs, the script is yielding to the browser to run its events, once the browser is done, your next timeout will be triggered.
Example http://jsfiddle.net/mendesjuan/PucXf/
var list = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 500000; i++) {
list.push(Math.random());
}
function sumOfSquares(list) {
var total = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
total += list[i] * list[i];
// DOM manipulation to make it take longer
var node = document.createElement("div");
node.innerHTML = "Sync temp value = " + total;
document.body.appendChild(node);
}
return total;
}
function sumOfSquaresAsync(arr, callback) {
var chunkSize = 1000; // Do 1000 at a time
var arrLen = arr.length;
var index = 0;
var total = 0;
nextStep();
function nextStep() {
var step = 0;
while (step < chunkSize && index < arrLen) {
total += arr[index] * arr[index];
// DOM manipulation to make it take longer
var node = document.createElement("div");
node.innerHTML = "Async temp value = " + total;
document.body.appendChild(node);
index++;
step++;
}
if (index < arrLen) {
setTimeout(nextStep, 10);
} else {
callback(total);
}
}
}
sumOfSquaresAsync(list, function(total) {console.log("Async Result: " + total)});
//console.log("Sync result" + sumOfSquares(list));
The example on jsfiddle has the synchronous call commented out, you can put it back in to see the browser come to a crawl. Notice that the asynchronous call does take a long time to complete, but it doesn't cause the long running script message and it lets you interact with the page while calculating (select text, button hover effects). You can see it printing partial results on the pane to the bottom right.
UPDATE http://jsfiddle.net/mendesjuan/PucXf/8/
Let's try to use c-smile's task function to implement sum of squares. I think he's missing a parameter, a function to call back when the task is finished. Using task allows us to create multiple chunked functions without duplicating the work of calling setTimeout and iteration.
/**
* #param {function} worker. It is passed two values, the current array index,
* and the item at that index
* #param {array} list Items to be traversed
* #param {callback} The function to call when iteration is finished;
* #param {number} maxit The number of iterations of the loop to run
* before yielding, defaults to 1000
*/
function task(worker, list, callback, maxit)
{
maxit = maxit || 1000;
var idx = 0;
exec_chunk();
function exec_chunk()
{
for(var n = 0; n < maxit; ++n)
{
if(idx >= list.length) {
callback();
return;
}
worker(idx, list[idx]);
idx++;
}
setTimeout(exec_chunk,1);
}
}
function sumOfSquaresAsync(list, callback)
{
var total = 0;
// The function that does the adding and squaring
function squareAndAdd(index, item) {
total += item * item;
// DOM manipulation to make it take longer and to see progress
var node = document.createElement("div");
node.innerHTML = "Async temp value = " + total;
document.body.appendChild(node);
}
// Let the caller know what the result is when iteration is finished
function onFinish() {
callback(total);
}
task(squareAndAdd, list, onFinish);
}
var list = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
list.push(Math.random());
}
sumOfSquaresAsync(list, function(total) {
console.log("Sum of Squares is " + total);
})
If your goal is to suppress "Kill-Wait" message as quick temporary fix for your slow JavaScript then the solution is to open Tools/Developer Tools in Google Chrome and keep it open and minimized somewhere on your desktop while browsing .