phew! That was a long title.
I'm reading WROX' book on Professional JavaScript for web developers and I came across this sample code, and I was just wondering if that was best practice:
function convertToArray(nodes) {
array = new Array();
for (var i=0, len=nodes.length; i < len; i++) {
array.push(nodes[i]);
}
return array;
}
The thing that's got me scratching my head is the "len=nodes.length". Am I wrong in thinking that the first sentence in a for-loop is only run once? Is there a reason you'd want to set a variable (len) to the length of the nodeList before running through it? Would you do that to a normal array as well?
Thanks
That is for performance reasons. A local variable is faster for several reasons:
The the length will need to be accessed all the time in the loop, once per every iteration;
A local variable lookup is faster than member lookup;
If nodes is an array, then .length is a magic property that may take a bit longer to retrieve than a member variable.
If nodes is an ActiveX object, then .length might result in a method call into the object, so that's the most expensive operation of all.
While we're discussing micro-optimizations, the following should be even faster:
function convertToArray(nodes) {
var i = nodes.length,
array = new Array(i); // potentially faster than `array = []`
// -- see comments
while(i--)
array[i] = nodes[i];
return array;
}
It needs one less local variable, uses a while and not a for loop and uses array assignment instead of the function call push().
Also, because we're counting down we pre-allocate the array's slots, the array's length doesn't have to be changed each iteration step, but only on the first one.
Related
Before fully defining my question, I must say that >>this question/answer<< doesn't answer my problem, and I have proven it to myself that the given answer doesn't match at all with the actual effect of property vs. variable or cached property (see below).
I have been using HTML5 canvas, and I write raw pixel blocks many times in a second in a 640x480 area.
As advised by some tutorials, it is good to cache the .data property of an ImageData variable (in this case, it would be _SCimgData).
If I cache that property in SC_IMG_DATA, I can putImageData repeatedly in the Canvas with no problem; but if I repeatedly access it directly with _ScimgData.data, the slow-down of the code is noticieable (taking nearly 1 second to fill a single 640x480 Canvas):
var SomeCanvas = document.getElementById("SomeCanvas");
var SCContext = SomeCanvas.getContext("2d");
var _SCimgData = SomeCanvas.getImageData(0, 0, 640, 400);
var SC_IMG_DATA = _SCimgData.data;
Now I have the following doubt:
Would my code be as slow for other kinds of similar accesses?
I need an array of objects for a set of functions that can have several "instances" of an object (created by a regular utility function), and that need the index of the instance in an array of objects, either to create/initialize it, or to update its properties.
My concrete example is this:
var objArray=new Array();
var objArray[0]=new Object();
objArray[0].property1="some string property";
for(var x=0; x<65536; x++)
doSomething(objArray[0].property1, objIDX=0);
Would that code become as unacceptably slow as in the Canvas case, if the properties and functions contained in some properties are called very intensively (several times in a single milisecond, of course using setInterval and several "timer threads" to avoid locking the browser)?
If so, what other alternative is there to speed up access for the different properties of several objects in the main object array?
EDIT 1 (2012-08-27)
Thanks for the suggestions. I have up-voted them since I suspect they will be useful for the project I'm working on.
I am thinking in a combination of methods, using mainly Arrays instead of Objects to build an actual array of "base objects", and addressing array elements by numbers (arr[0]) instead of string array keys (arr["zero"]).
var OBJECTS_SIZE=10
var Obj_Instances=new Array();
Obj_Instances[0]="property or array 1 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[1]=new Array();
Obj_Instances[1][0]=new ArrayBuffer(128);
Obj_Instances[1][1]=new DataView(Obj_Instances[1][0]);
Obj_Instances[2]="property or array 3 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[3]=function(){alert("some function here")};
Obj_Instances[4]="property or array 5 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[5]="property or array 6 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[6]=3;
Obj_Instances[7]="property or array 8 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[8]="property or array 9 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[9]="property or array 10 of Object 0";
Obj_Instances[10]="property or array 1 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[11]=new Array();
Obj_Instances[11][0]=new ArrayBuffer(128);
Obj_Instances[11][1]=new DataView(Obj_Instances[11][0]);
Obj_Instances[12]="property or array 3 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[13]=function(){alert("some function there")};
Obj_Instances[14]="property or array 5 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[15]="property or array 6 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[16]=3;
Obj_Instances[17]="property or array 8 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[18]="property or array 9 of Object 1";
Obj_Instances[19]="property or array 10 of Object 1";
function do_Something_To_Property_Number_6(objIdx)
{
//Fix the index to locate the base address
//of the object instance:
///
objIdx=(objIdx*OBJECTS_SIZE);
Obj_instances[objIdx+6]++; //Point to "Property" 6 of that object
}
I would have, say an "instance" of an "object" that takes up the first 10 array elements; the next "instance" would take the next 10 array elements, and so on (creating the initialization in a custom "constructor" function to add the new block of array elements).
I will also try to use jsPerf and JSHint to see which combination result better.
To answer your "doubts", I suggest using JSPerf to benchmark your code. One can't really tell by code alone if the procedure is faster than another unless tested.
Also, I suggest you use the literal notation for arrays and objects instead of the new notation during construction:
var objArray=[
{
property : 'some string property'
}, {
...
},
];
Also, based on your code, it's better to have this since you are using the same object per iteration:
var obj = objArray[0].property1,
objIDX = 0;
for(var x=0; x<65536; x++){
doSomething(obj,objIDX);
}
I realise this is not quite answering your question (as it has already been answered), however as you seem to be looking for speed improvements in regard to function calls that happen thousands of times (as others who find this might also be doing). I thought I'd include this here as it goes against assumptions:
An example function:
var go = function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h) {
return a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h;
}
The following is how you would normally call a repetitive function:
var i=500000; while(i--){
go(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8);
}
However, if none (or a few) of those arguments ever change for this particular usage of the function, then it's far better to do this (from a speed pov - obviously not an asynchronous pov):
var i=500000; go.args = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8];
while(i--){
go();
}
In order for the above to work you only need a slight modification to the original function:
var go = function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h, i) {
if ( go.args ) {
i = go.args;
a = i[0]; b = i[1];
c = i[2]; d = i[3];
e = i[4]; f = i[5];
g = i[6]; h = i[7];
}
return a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h;
}
This second function runs significantly faster because you are not passing in any arguments (a function called with no args is very quick to initiate). Pulling the values from the .args array doesn't seem to be that costly either (unless you involve strings). Even if you update one or two of the args it's still far faster, which makes it perfect for pixel or imagedata manipulations because you are normally only shifting x & y:
var i=500000; go.args = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8];
while(i--){
go.args[2] = i;
go();
}
So in a way this is an example of where an object property can be faster than local vars - if a little convoluted and off topic ;)
Possible browser optimizations notwithstanding, accessing a property of an object is more expensive than accessing a local variable (but not necessarily a global variable or a variable of a parent function).
The deeper the property, the more of a performance hit you take. In other words,
for(var x=0; x<65536; x++)
doSomething(objArray[0].property1, objIDX=0);
would be improved by caching objArray[0].property1, and not repeatedly assigning to objIDX:
var prop = objArray[0].property1;
objIDX = 0;
for(var x=0; x<65536; x++)
doSomething(prop, 0);
I haven't got any code yet, as I was just wondering if it is possible to loop through an Array that is dynamically populated to the amount of values could be different each time. The variables would obviously have to make use of an incrementing value?
You can use the array length property to work with an unknown array lengths:
var arr = ["carrots", "bananas", "onions"];
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) {
//every element accesible via arr[i];
//example:
console.log(arr[i]);
}
That will loop through the whole array even if it there are more or less elements on it
With this base, I am sure you can do what you want from here
I'm sure by now you've probably figured it out, but I'll just add this here for any future Javascript beginners.
Javascript Arrays have a built-in function called forEach allowing you to iterate over every element in an array. It functions as a loop specifically meant for Arrays. It takes a callback function as an argument and looks like the following:
let stringArr = ['dog', 'cat', 'lion', 'elephant'];
stringArr.forEach(function(element, counter) {
console.log(counter+') '+element);
});
// Outputs:
0) dog
1) cat
2) lion
3) elephant
The callback function can, of course be replaced by an arrow function, if you'd like, but as you can see the first argument in the callback function (element) is the element in the array, and the second argument (counter) keeps track of the index of the element in the array.
What I love about the forEach is that it makes accessing the array elements easier (even if only somewhat) than using a standard for-loop. For instance when looping through objects with a for-loop, to access the individual elements in the array one would have to do myArray[i].property, but using the forEach, one can simply do element.property.
Here's some additional reading on the forEach if it still hasn't quite clicked yet.
When iterating over a string or array (or anything else with a length property), I've always used a loop like this:
var foo = [...];
var i;
for(i=0; i<foo.length; i++) {
// do something
}
However, I just encountered someone who did this:
var foo = [...];
var fooLen = foo.length;
var i;
for(i=0; i<fooLen; i++) {
// do something
}
He said he thought the ".length" was recalculating the length, thus the loop would recalculate the length of the string/array over and over, so by saving its length to a variable it would be more optimized.
I always assumed length was just a value property because of the way it's used (it's not "asdf".length(), it's "asdf".length) but is this not the case?
There are some situations where putting the length into a local variable is faster than accessing the .length property and it varies by browser. There have been performance discussions about this here on SO and numerous jsperf tests. In a modern browser, the differences were not as much as I thought they would be, but they do exist in some cases (I can't seem to find those previous threads).
There are also different types of objects that may have different performance characteristics. For example, a javascript array may have different performance characteristics than the array-like object returned from some DOM functions like getElementsByClassName().
And, there are some situations where you may be adding items to the end of the array and don't want to be iterating through the items you add so you get the length before you start.
From MDC
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
// Do something with a[i]
}
This is slightly inefficient as you are looking up the length property
once every loop. An improvement is this:
for (var i = 0, len = a.length; i < len; i++) {
// Do something with a[i]
}
Maybe not much of a difference with "regular" arrays, but for something like "node.children.length" I would err on the safe side and call it only once. CoffeeScript does that for you automatically.
Note that there is an actual difference in behaviour if the length can change during the loop.
It depends on if you are changing the foo's length.
var foo = [1,2,3];
while(foo.length){
foo.shift();
}
Obviously the code is keeping track of the foo's length, not simply remembering a value.
You can assign the length as a number in the loop.
for(i=0, L=foo.length;i<L; i++) {
// do something to foo[i]
}
I have a string that has data separated by a pipe character (|).
Example
var somestring = "data1|data2|data3";
var separated = somestring.split("|");
I know how to use the split() to separate each data.
However, I don't know how many pipes there will be in the resulting Array.
In jQuery or JavaScript, how do I loop over the array returned?
In jQuery or JavaScript, how do I loop through each separated variable?
You basically just need to iterate over the resulting Array.
jQuery
$.each loop
This method is easy to work with, and benefits in the variables used being encapsulated.
$.each(separated, function(index, chunk) {
// `chunk` is each member of the array.
});
jsFiddle.
Of course, jQuery is JavaScript so any of the below methods will also work.
JavaScript
for loop
This is the recommended way.
for (var i = 0, length = separated.length; i < length; i++) {
var chunk = separated[i];
// `chunk` is each member of the array.
}
jsFiddle.
You'll notice too the length property is cached so it is not looked up on each iteration. Some browsers already optimise for this, however IE appears to still benefit from it cached. It only takes 5 seconds to do, so you may as well keep IE users happy too.
You may want to define i and chunk outside of the for loop, because JavaScript has no block scope (unless you're using let), and those variables will exist before (declaration hoisted) and after (no block scope).
for ( in ) loop
This loop is generally not recommended, as it should be used for iterating over object properties only, not array like member properties.
for (var chunk in separated) {
if ( ! separated.hasOwnProperty(chunk)) {
continue;
}
// `separated[chunk]` is each member of the array.
}
jsFiddle.
This loop will loop over all properties up the prototype chain, so hasOwnProperty() must be used. For this reason it is not recommended for arrays.
for ( of ) loop
This loop is standardized in ECMA 6 and is able to loop over NodeLists and iterators.
for (var chunk of separated) {
// `chunk` is each member of the array.
}
jsFiddle
forEach() method
This method is an addition to the ECMA-262 standard. It's not available in IE8, but it can be shimmed relatively easily.
separated.forEach(function(chunk, index) {
// `chunk` is each member of the array.
});
jsFiddle.
Other specialised methods
If you're looking to iterate for a specific goal, it may be useful to use a specialised iterator. Keep in mind these also don't have the best browser support.
filter method
Creates a mew array of the elements which the associated callback returned truthy for.
separated.filter(function(element) {
return +element > 255;
});
reduce method
Creates a new value based on reducing the elements of the array, from left to right.
separated.reduce(function(accumulator, element) {
return accumulator.concat(element);
}, "");
See also the reduceRight method.
map method
Creates a new array, replacing each element with the returned value of the associated callback.
separated.map(function(element) {
return element.substr(0, 1);
});
every method
Returns a boolean value of which is the result of every element in the array passing the test. This method short circuits, i.e. it returns whenever one element's callback doesn't return truthy.
separated.every(function(element) {
return element.substr(0, 1) == "a";
});
some method
Returns a boolean value of which is the result of some element in the array passing the test. This method short circuits, i.e. it returns whenever one element's callback passes the test.
separated.some(function(element) {
return element.substr(0, 1) == "a";
});
separated.length should be all you need.
str.split() returns an array of values, so in your example, since 'separated' is an array, you could:
for (var i=0, len=separated.length; i < len; i++) {
// do something with separated[i]
}
you can do it in jquery like this
$.each(separated,function(key,item){ alert('here is ' + item + ' at position ' + key) })
If your question really is "how do I loop through each separated variable?" then:
for (var i = 0; i < separated.length; i++)
{
//Do something with separated[i];
}
//or (apparently this is deprecated)
for(var a in separated)
{
//Do something with a
}
Loop through with a FOR...NEXT construct like in most other languages:
var somestring = "data1|data2|data3";
var separated = somestring.split("|");
for (i=0 ; i<separated.length; i++) {
document.write(separated[i]);
document.write("<br/>");
}
I just tried the for...in statement in Javascript.
This gives no error:
var images = document.getElementsByTagName('img');
for(x in images){
document.write(images[x]) + " ");
}
However, this does what it should but gives an error in the FF error console.
for(x in images){
images[x].style.visibility="visible";
}
This made me VERY curious as to what's going on.
Doing this:
for(x in images){
document.write(x);
}
...gave me this:
01234567891011121314151617lengthitemnamedItem
What's there at the end? I assume this makes the document.images / document.getElementsByTagName('img') array not suitable to use with the for...in statement since the values for x at the end won't correspond to an image? Maybe a for loop is better?
Don't iterate through arrays with for ... in loops. Use an index:
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; ++i) {
// images[i] ...
}
The for ... in construct isn't wrong, it's just not what you want to do; it's for when you want to iterate through all properties of an object. Arrays are objects, and there are other properties besides the semantically-interesting indexed elements.
(Actually what comes back from getElementsByTagName isn't really an Array; it's a node list. You can however treat it like an array and it'll generally work OK. The same basic caveat applies for for ... in in any case.)
for..in does not loop through the indexes of an array, it loops through the enumerable property names of an object. It happens that the only enumerable properties array instances have, by default, are array indexes, and so it mostly works to think it does array indexes in limited situations. But that's not what for..in does, and misunderstanding this will bite you. :-) It breaks as soon as you add any further properties to the array (a perfectly valid thing to do) or any library you're using decides to extend the array prototype (also a valid thing to do).
In any case, what you get back from document.getElementsByTagName isn't an array. It's a NodeList. Your best bet for iterating through NodeLists is to use an explicit index a'la Pointy's answer -- e.g., a straight counting loop:
var i;
for (i = 0; i < list.length; ++i) {
// ... do your thing ...
}
Somewhat off-topic because it doesn't relate to your NodeList, but: When you are actually working with a real array, because arrays in JavaScript are sparse, there is applicability for for..in, you just have to be clear about what you're doing (looping through property names, not indexes). You might want to loop only as many times as the array has actual entries, rather than looping through all the indexes in the gaps in the sparse array. Here's how you do that:
var a, name;
a = [];
a[0] = "zero";
a[10000] = "ten thousand";
for (name in a) {
// Only process this property name if it's a property of the
// instance itself (not its prototype), and if the name survives
// transition to and from a string unchanged -- e.g., it's numeric
if (a.hasOwnProperty(name) && parseInt(name) == name) {
alert(a[name]);
}
}
The above only alerts twice, "zero" and "ten thousand"; whereas a straight counting loop without the checks would alert 10,001 times (mostly saying "undefined" because it's looping through the gap).
The problem with the for ... in construct is that everything from the prototype(s) gets included in the enumeration.
What your output is showing is basically every attribute of images, which is an array object. So you get
all the elements in your array, i.e. the numbers that appear in your output.
all the properties available on your array. This is why you see length in your output for example.
Your code breaks due to number 2, since a functions does not have a style attribute
So, yes, as Pointy shows, the correct way to iterate over the elements of an array in JavaScript is by using a for loop.