I saw this in an auto-generated javascript file:
function map(x){
x={x:x};
delete x.x;
return x
}
My conclusion is that is used to create an object, but why create it in that way? Is it a pattern?
UPDATE
More info, the tool that created this code is dart2js from Google, the code is used in this context:
(function (reflectionData) {
function map(x){x={x:x};delete x.x;return x}
if (!init.libraries) init.libraries = [];
if (!init.mangledNames) init.mangledNames = map();
if (!init.mangledGlobalNames) init.mangledGlobalNames = map();
if (!init.statics) init.statics = map();
if (!init.interfaces) init.interfaces = map();
In the dart source, there's a comment which says that this technique is used for v8 performance reasons:
// [map] returns an object literal that V8 shouldn't try to optimize with a
// hidden class. This prevents a potential performance problem where V8 tries
// to build a hidden class for an object used as a hashMap.
https://github.com/dart-lang/bleeding_edge/blob/4dde22bc006605fc168cefcc0807c43354463b6e/dart/sdk/lib/_internal/compiler/implementation/js_emitter/reflection_data_parser.dart#L17-L19
The word map here refers to an associative array
I read a article about this a while ago actually and apparently if you delete something from a object, V8 puts the object into Dictionary Mode or Slow Mode and then properties are stored in a "hash table".
V8 can handle minor divergences like this just fine, but if your code assigns all sorts of random properties to objects from the same constructor in no particular order, or if you delete properties, V8 will drop the object into dictionary mode, where properties are stored in a hash table. This prevents an absurd number of maps from being allocated.
This is the article http://www.jayconrod.com/posts/52/a-tour-of-v8-object-representation it explains it in there along with other things.
I may be wrong but I think this is used for Large (in size and life) objects to increase performance and decrease the chance of a memory leak.
This is on the same sort of topic
Does using delete keyword effect v8 optimizations of an object?
The purpose of the map function is to create an associative-map object whose set of properties can be quickly altered.
The natural question arrises: aren't all JavaScript objects already maps by default? Yes, they are! The EMCAScript specification allows objects to add or drop properties at any time, allowing them to function as associative maps.
But, alas, the low-level language that is responsible for implementing the JavaScript execution environment (likely C++) is not so easygoing. In particular, V8 uses a concept called hidden classes, whereby the addition of a property to a JavaScript object will cause the creation of a new C++ class. V8 does this as an optimization because it assumes your code will repeatedly use a small set of object types.
For example, you have a Bullet type with x, y, dx, and dy properties. In practical terms, these types are fixed; it's not likely that you would suddenly add on a new property to a Bullet object on the fly. The hidden-class optimization means that using a fixed set of object types runs very quickly, but it also means that, sometimes, the real cost of adding a new property to a JS object can be quite high, because it prompts the creation of a new C++ class that has the new property.
By introducing a delete operation on the object x, you signal to the V8 engine that this object x will not benefit from the hidden-class optimization. The idea behind hidden classes is that your objects will not usually change their set of properties (except adding new properties at construction time). By doing a delete you unequivocally signal that this object will change its property set in ways that make hidden classes totally unhelpful. For this object, the cost of creating hidden classes far outweighs the benefits.
Thus, the object returned by map will be excluded from V8 hidden-class optimizations, allowing it to add and remove arbitrary properties much more quickly.
Related
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 :)
I am no javascript programmer and am totally puzzled by what this code does and what it is used for:
function map(x) {
x = Object.create(null);
x.x = 0;
delete x.x;
return x;
}
It's part of what you get when using the dart2js compiler.
I'm not trying to understand the whole context, but what does assigning a property and deleting it directly again help achieve?
This looks like outsmarting some internal JS engine behaviour.
EDIT: As requested, here's the complete out.js as generated by dart2js (input is the "Hello world!" example from Wikipedia): https://gist.github.com/Blutkoete/59be155b2642832e9acd383df0857d02
EDIT 2: gurvinder372's link indicates is has to do with "delegating to anonymous JS objects for performance", but I'll probably need a lot of experience with JS to understand that.
Well... This is an interesting topic and understanding this trick takes to read a little bit on the object representation of V8 compiler. I am not an expert on this but the topic was interesting enough to intrigue me to search for some answer. So here is what i have found.
First of all deleting a property seems to be a trick to change the internal structure of how object properties are kept and accessed. In other words deleting a property switches the object to dictionary mode where the properties are kept in a hash map. So when a dummy property is deleted immediately after it's created gives you an object in dictionary mode.
V8 can handle minor divergences like this just fine, but if your code
assigns all sorts of random properties to objects from the same
constructor in no particular order, or if you delete properties, V8
will drop the object into dictionary mode, where properties are stored
in a hash table. This prevents an absurd number of maps from being
allocated.
Taken from this nice article A tour of V8: object representation
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 :)
I tried Dart SDK after the 1.0 release, and wrote a simple hello-world program in Dart.
Then, with the SDK tool, I generated the JavaScript file: helloworld.dart.js
I went through the output js code, I saw there is a function named convertToFastObject.
The definition is:
function convertToFastObject(properties) {
function MyClass() {};
MyClass.prototype = properties;
new MyClass();
return properties;
}
The usage code is like:
A = convertToFastObject(A);
B = convertToFastObject(B);
I know this code is for various kinds of Browsers, not for Chromium/Chrome only.
I cannot understand, why the function can make the Object faster?
This is a speed optimization for Google's V8 engine.
To be sure, this code snippet looks pretty weird: it assigns properties as the prototype of a constructor MyClass, then uses the constructor to build an instance with new MyClass(), and then returns properties. This is strange because 1) properties is never altered, and 2) the function never uses MyClass or the instance ever again.
Whenever you see strange behaviors like this, you can be fairly sure it's a speed optimization. In this case, the speed is gained by using V8's "hidden class" optimization. From a closely-related section of the Dart source:
// Use the newly created object as prototype. In Chrome,
// this creates a hidden class for the object and makes
// sure it is fast to access.
In the V8 engine, a constructed object is given a "hidden" C++ class to represent its set of properties. By constructing an object whose prototype is the properties object, the property values of properties become part of the new instance's C++ hidden class, which improves property-access speed.
I believe all objects in V8 have hidden classes by default, so the need for this technique isn't immediately obvious. However, it is possible for an object to lose its hidden class (and enter "slow mode" or "dictionary mode") by demonstrating that it doesn't benefit from the optimization. When an object deletes one of its properties or adds too many properties that are unrelated to the properties of any other objects, V8 assumes that a shared hidden class isn't valuable, because the object has no other similar object to share its hidden class with. This convertToFastObject function can re-instate a "slow mode" object's right to a hidden class by using it as the prototype of a newly constructed instance.
Related hidden class question, arising from a different Dart optimization: What is this generated code supposed (intended) to do?
Where data is stored in a script contributes directly to the amount of time it takes to execute. In general, there are four places from which data can be accessed in a script:
-Literal value
-Variable
-Array item
-Object property
Reading data always incurs a performance cost, and that cost depends on which of these four locations the data is stored in. if you create a property using the "Object.Prototype.", the scope here is "Object.Prototype" which is smaller than the object's scope "Object." that hold in addition the local vars and stuff non enumerable. That is why creating proprieties using Prototype have a faster access ! Read these 2 articles to get better understanding:
1- http://oreilly.com/server-administration/excerpts/even-faster-websites/writing-efficient-javascript.html 2-http://www.packtpub.com/article/using-prototype-property-in-javascript
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 :)