Related
Ever since its introduction in ECMA-262, 3rd Edition, the Array.prototype.push method's return value is a Number:
15.4.4.7 Array.prototype.push ( [ item1 [ , item2 [ , … ] ] ] )
The arguments are appended to the end of the array, in the order in which they appear. The new length of the array is returned as the result of the call.
What were the design decisions behind returning the array's new length, as opposed to returning something potentially more useful, like:
A reference to the newly appended item/s
The mutated array itself
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
I understand the expectation for array.push() to return the mutated array instead of its new length. And the desire to use this syntax for chaining reasons.
However, there is a built in way to do this: array.concat().
Note that concat expects to be given an array, not an item. So, remember to wrap the item(s) you want to add in [], if they are not already in an array.
newArray = oldArray.concat([newItem]);
Array chaining can be accomplished by using .concat(), as it returns an array,
but not by .push(), as it returns an integer (the new length of the array).
Here is a common pattern used in React for changing the state variable, based on its prior value:
// the property value we are changing
selectedBook.shelf = newShelf;
this.setState((prevState) => (
{books: prevState.books
.filter((book) => (book.id !== selectedBook.id))
.concat(selectedBook)
}
));
state object has a books property, that holds an array of book.
book is an object with id, and shelf properties (among others).
setState() takes in an object that holds the new value to be assigned to state
selectedBook is already in the books array, but its property shelf needs to be changed.
We can only give setState a top level object, however.
We cannot tell it to go find the book, and look for a property on that book, and give it this new value.
So we take the books array as it were.
filter to remove the old copy of selectedBook.
Then concat to add selectedBook back in, after updating its shelf property.
Great use case for wanting to chain push.
However, the correct way to do this is actually with concat.
Summary:
array.push() returns a number (mutated array's new length).
array.concat([]) returns a new array.
Technically, it returns a new array with the modified element added to the end, and leaves the initial arrays unchanged.
Returning a new array instance, as opposed to recycling the existing array instance is an important distinction, that makes it very useful for state objects in React applications, to get changed data to re-render.
I posted this in TC39's communication hub, and was able to learn a bit more about the history behind this:
push, pop, shift, unshift were originally added to JS1.2 (Netscape 4) in 1997.
There were modeled after the similarly named functions in Perl.
JS1.2 push followed the Perl 4 convention of returning the last item pushed.
In JS1.3 (Netscape 4.06 summer 1998) changed push to follow the Perl 5 conventions of returning the new length of the array.
see original jsarray.c source
/*
* If JS1.2, follow Perl4 by returning the last thing pushed. Otherwise,
* return the new array length.
*/
I cannot explain why they chose to return the new length, but in response to your suggestions:
Returning the newly appended item:
Given that JavaScript uses C-style assignment which emits the assigned value (as opposed to Basic-style assignment which does not) you can still have that behavior:
var addedItem;
myArray.push( addedItem = someExpression() );
(though I recognise this does mean you can't have it as part of an r-value in a declaration+assignment combination)
Returning the mutated array itself:
That would be in the style of "fluent" APIs which gained popularity significantly after ECMAScript 3 was completed and it would not be keeping in the style of other library features in ECMAScript, and again, it isn't that much extra legwork to enable the scenarios you're after by creating your own push method:
Array.prototype.push2 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return this;
};
myArray.push2( foo ).push2( bar ).push2( baz );
or:
Array.prototype.push3 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return x;
};
var foo = myArray.push3( computeFoo() );
I was curious since you asked. I made a sample array and inspected it in Chrome.
var arr = [];
arr.push(1);
arr.push(2);
arr.push(3);
console.log(arr);
Since I already have reference to the array as well as every object I push into it, there's only one other property that could be useful... length. By returning this one additional value of the Array data structure, I now have access to all the relevant information. It seems like the best design choice. That, or return nothing at all if you want to argue for the sake of saving 1 single machine instruction.
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
No clue - I'm not certain a record of rationale along these lines exists. It would be up to the implementer and is likely commented in any given code base implementing the ECMA script standards.
I don't know "Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?".
But I also think it's not clear and not intuitive that push() returns the length of array like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.push("c");
console.log(test); // 3
Then, if you want to use clear and intuitive method instead of push(), you can use concat() which returns the array with its values like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.concat("c");
console.log(test); // ["a", "b", "c"]
The question is partially answered in the document you mention (Ecma 262 3rd edition), there are methods that mutate the array and methods that don't. The methods that mutate the array will return the length of the mutated array. For adding elements that would be push, splice and unshift (Depending on the position you want the new element in).
If you want to get the new mutated array you can use concat. Concat will input any number of arrays you want added to the original array and add all the elements into a new array. i.e:
const array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const array2 = ['d', 'e', 'f'];
const array3=['g','h'];
const array4 = array1.concat(array2,array3);
The new array created will have all the elements and the other three won't be changed. There are other (Many) ways to add the elements to an array both mutative and not mutative. So there is your answer, it returns the length because it is changing it, it doesn't need to return the full array.
Ever since its introduction in ECMA-262, 3rd Edition, the Array.prototype.push method's return value is a Number:
15.4.4.7 Array.prototype.push ( [ item1 [ , item2 [ , … ] ] ] )
The arguments are appended to the end of the array, in the order in which they appear. The new length of the array is returned as the result of the call.
What were the design decisions behind returning the array's new length, as opposed to returning something potentially more useful, like:
A reference to the newly appended item/s
The mutated array itself
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
I understand the expectation for array.push() to return the mutated array instead of its new length. And the desire to use this syntax for chaining reasons.
However, there is a built in way to do this: array.concat().
Note that concat expects to be given an array, not an item. So, remember to wrap the item(s) you want to add in [], if they are not already in an array.
newArray = oldArray.concat([newItem]);
Array chaining can be accomplished by using .concat(), as it returns an array,
but not by .push(), as it returns an integer (the new length of the array).
Here is a common pattern used in React for changing the state variable, based on its prior value:
// the property value we are changing
selectedBook.shelf = newShelf;
this.setState((prevState) => (
{books: prevState.books
.filter((book) => (book.id !== selectedBook.id))
.concat(selectedBook)
}
));
state object has a books property, that holds an array of book.
book is an object with id, and shelf properties (among others).
setState() takes in an object that holds the new value to be assigned to state
selectedBook is already in the books array, but its property shelf needs to be changed.
We can only give setState a top level object, however.
We cannot tell it to go find the book, and look for a property on that book, and give it this new value.
So we take the books array as it were.
filter to remove the old copy of selectedBook.
Then concat to add selectedBook back in, after updating its shelf property.
Great use case for wanting to chain push.
However, the correct way to do this is actually with concat.
Summary:
array.push() returns a number (mutated array's new length).
array.concat([]) returns a new array.
Technically, it returns a new array with the modified element added to the end, and leaves the initial arrays unchanged.
Returning a new array instance, as opposed to recycling the existing array instance is an important distinction, that makes it very useful for state objects in React applications, to get changed data to re-render.
I posted this in TC39's communication hub, and was able to learn a bit more about the history behind this:
push, pop, shift, unshift were originally added to JS1.2 (Netscape 4) in 1997.
There were modeled after the similarly named functions in Perl.
JS1.2 push followed the Perl 4 convention of returning the last item pushed.
In JS1.3 (Netscape 4.06 summer 1998) changed push to follow the Perl 5 conventions of returning the new length of the array.
see original jsarray.c source
/*
* If JS1.2, follow Perl4 by returning the last thing pushed. Otherwise,
* return the new array length.
*/
I cannot explain why they chose to return the new length, but in response to your suggestions:
Returning the newly appended item:
Given that JavaScript uses C-style assignment which emits the assigned value (as opposed to Basic-style assignment which does not) you can still have that behavior:
var addedItem;
myArray.push( addedItem = someExpression() );
(though I recognise this does mean you can't have it as part of an r-value in a declaration+assignment combination)
Returning the mutated array itself:
That would be in the style of "fluent" APIs which gained popularity significantly after ECMAScript 3 was completed and it would not be keeping in the style of other library features in ECMAScript, and again, it isn't that much extra legwork to enable the scenarios you're after by creating your own push method:
Array.prototype.push2 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return this;
};
myArray.push2( foo ).push2( bar ).push2( baz );
or:
Array.prototype.push3 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return x;
};
var foo = myArray.push3( computeFoo() );
I was curious since you asked. I made a sample array and inspected it in Chrome.
var arr = [];
arr.push(1);
arr.push(2);
arr.push(3);
console.log(arr);
Since I already have reference to the array as well as every object I push into it, there's only one other property that could be useful... length. By returning this one additional value of the Array data structure, I now have access to all the relevant information. It seems like the best design choice. That, or return nothing at all if you want to argue for the sake of saving 1 single machine instruction.
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
No clue - I'm not certain a record of rationale along these lines exists. It would be up to the implementer and is likely commented in any given code base implementing the ECMA script standards.
I don't know "Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?".
But I also think it's not clear and not intuitive that push() returns the length of array like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.push("c");
console.log(test); // 3
Then, if you want to use clear and intuitive method instead of push(), you can use concat() which returns the array with its values like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.concat("c");
console.log(test); // ["a", "b", "c"]
The question is partially answered in the document you mention (Ecma 262 3rd edition), there are methods that mutate the array and methods that don't. The methods that mutate the array will return the length of the mutated array. For adding elements that would be push, splice and unshift (Depending on the position you want the new element in).
If you want to get the new mutated array you can use concat. Concat will input any number of arrays you want added to the original array and add all the elements into a new array. i.e:
const array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const array2 = ['d', 'e', 'f'];
const array3=['g','h'];
const array4 = array1.concat(array2,array3);
The new array created will have all the elements and the other three won't be changed. There are other (Many) ways to add the elements to an array both mutative and not mutative. So there is your answer, it returns the length because it is changing it, it doesn't need to return the full array.
Ever since its introduction in ECMA-262, 3rd Edition, the Array.prototype.push method's return value is a Number:
15.4.4.7 Array.prototype.push ( [ item1 [ , item2 [ , … ] ] ] )
The arguments are appended to the end of the array, in the order in which they appear. The new length of the array is returned as the result of the call.
What were the design decisions behind returning the array's new length, as opposed to returning something potentially more useful, like:
A reference to the newly appended item/s
The mutated array itself
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
I understand the expectation for array.push() to return the mutated array instead of its new length. And the desire to use this syntax for chaining reasons.
However, there is a built in way to do this: array.concat().
Note that concat expects to be given an array, not an item. So, remember to wrap the item(s) you want to add in [], if they are not already in an array.
newArray = oldArray.concat([newItem]);
Array chaining can be accomplished by using .concat(), as it returns an array,
but not by .push(), as it returns an integer (the new length of the array).
Here is a common pattern used in React for changing the state variable, based on its prior value:
// the property value we are changing
selectedBook.shelf = newShelf;
this.setState((prevState) => (
{books: prevState.books
.filter((book) => (book.id !== selectedBook.id))
.concat(selectedBook)
}
));
state object has a books property, that holds an array of book.
book is an object with id, and shelf properties (among others).
setState() takes in an object that holds the new value to be assigned to state
selectedBook is already in the books array, but its property shelf needs to be changed.
We can only give setState a top level object, however.
We cannot tell it to go find the book, and look for a property on that book, and give it this new value.
So we take the books array as it were.
filter to remove the old copy of selectedBook.
Then concat to add selectedBook back in, after updating its shelf property.
Great use case for wanting to chain push.
However, the correct way to do this is actually with concat.
Summary:
array.push() returns a number (mutated array's new length).
array.concat([]) returns a new array.
Technically, it returns a new array with the modified element added to the end, and leaves the initial arrays unchanged.
Returning a new array instance, as opposed to recycling the existing array instance is an important distinction, that makes it very useful for state objects in React applications, to get changed data to re-render.
I posted this in TC39's communication hub, and was able to learn a bit more about the history behind this:
push, pop, shift, unshift were originally added to JS1.2 (Netscape 4) in 1997.
There were modeled after the similarly named functions in Perl.
JS1.2 push followed the Perl 4 convention of returning the last item pushed.
In JS1.3 (Netscape 4.06 summer 1998) changed push to follow the Perl 5 conventions of returning the new length of the array.
see original jsarray.c source
/*
* If JS1.2, follow Perl4 by returning the last thing pushed. Otherwise,
* return the new array length.
*/
I cannot explain why they chose to return the new length, but in response to your suggestions:
Returning the newly appended item:
Given that JavaScript uses C-style assignment which emits the assigned value (as opposed to Basic-style assignment which does not) you can still have that behavior:
var addedItem;
myArray.push( addedItem = someExpression() );
(though I recognise this does mean you can't have it as part of an r-value in a declaration+assignment combination)
Returning the mutated array itself:
That would be in the style of "fluent" APIs which gained popularity significantly after ECMAScript 3 was completed and it would not be keeping in the style of other library features in ECMAScript, and again, it isn't that much extra legwork to enable the scenarios you're after by creating your own push method:
Array.prototype.push2 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return this;
};
myArray.push2( foo ).push2( bar ).push2( baz );
or:
Array.prototype.push3 = function(x) {
this.push(x);
return x;
};
var foo = myArray.push3( computeFoo() );
I was curious since you asked. I made a sample array and inspected it in Chrome.
var arr = [];
arr.push(1);
arr.push(2);
arr.push(3);
console.log(arr);
Since I already have reference to the array as well as every object I push into it, there's only one other property that could be useful... length. By returning this one additional value of the Array data structure, I now have access to all the relevant information. It seems like the best design choice. That, or return nothing at all if you want to argue for the sake of saving 1 single machine instruction.
Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?
No clue - I'm not certain a record of rationale along these lines exists. It would be up to the implementer and is likely commented in any given code base implementing the ECMA script standards.
I don't know "Why was it done like this, and is there a historical record of how these decisions came to be made?".
But I also think it's not clear and not intuitive that push() returns the length of array like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.push("c");
console.log(test); // 3
Then, if you want to use clear and intuitive method instead of push(), you can use concat() which returns the array with its values like below:
let arr = ["a", "b"];
let test = arr.concat("c");
console.log(test); // ["a", "b", "c"]
The question is partially answered in the document you mention (Ecma 262 3rd edition), there are methods that mutate the array and methods that don't. The methods that mutate the array will return the length of the mutated array. For adding elements that would be push, splice and unshift (Depending on the position you want the new element in).
If you want to get the new mutated array you can use concat. Concat will input any number of arrays you want added to the original array and add all the elements into a new array. i.e:
const array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const array2 = ['d', 'e', 'f'];
const array3=['g','h'];
const array4 = array1.concat(array2,array3);
The new array created will have all the elements and the other three won't be changed. There are other (Many) ways to add the elements to an array both mutative and not mutative. So there is your answer, it returns the length because it is changing it, it doesn't need to return the full array.
I'm developing web XMPP chat. After retrieving of Roster I'm putting people infos to array of objects, but before pushing object to array I must check for it previous existence on that array, and it's quite slow, because it makes operations in count of sum of arithmetic series, which is ex. 820 for 40 number of contacts, and that number doesn't make me happy. And my question is: are there any optimizations possible for search method in this case?
Also I don't wan't to convert array to associative array.
Objects are not sorted.
I know there are other threads, but there is nothing about optimization.
Use both an array an an object.
var info_array = [];
var info_object = {};
Then when you get a new info, do:
if (!info_object[info.name]) {
info_array.push(info);
info_object[info.name] = info;
}
Now you can either iterate over info_array, or access them by name quickly using info_object.
i have one array of ids and one JavaScript objects array. I need to filter/search the JavaScript objects array with the values in the array in Node JS.
For example
var id = [1,2,3];
var fullData = [
{id:1, name: "test1"}
,{id:2, name: "test2"}
,{id:3, name: "test3"}
,{id:4, name: "test4"}
,{id:5, name: "test5"}
];
Using the above data, as a result i need to have :
var result = [
{id:1, name: "test1"}
,{id:2, name: "test2"}
,{id:3, name: "test3"}
];
I know i can loop through both and check for matching ids. But is this the only way to do it or there is more simple and resource friendly solution.
The amount of data which will be compared is about 30-40k rows.
This will do the trick, using Array.prototype.filter:
var result = fullData.filter(function(item){ // Filter fulldata on...
return id.indexOf(item.id) !== -1; // Whether or not the current item's `id`
}); // is found in the `id` array.
Please note that this filter function is not available on IE 8 or lower, but the MDN has a polyfill available.
As long as you're starting with an unsorted Array of all possible Objects, there's no way around iterating through it. #Cerbrus' answer is one good way of doing this, with Array.prototype.filter, but you could also use loops.
But do you really need to start with an unsorted Array of all possible Objects?
For example, is it possible to filter these objects out before they ever get into the Array? Maybe you could apply your test when you're first building the Array, so that objects which fail the test never even become part of it. That would be more resource-friendly, and if it makes sense for your particular app, then it might even be simpler.
function insertItemIfPass(theArray, theItem, theTest) {
if (theTest(theItem)) {
theArray.push(theItem);
}
}
// Insert your items by using insertItemIfPass
var i;
for (i = 0; i < theArray.length; i += 1) {
doSomething(theArray[i]);
}
Alternatively, could you use a data structure that keeps track of whether an object passes the test? The simplest way to do this, if you absolutely must use an Array, would be to also keep an index to it. When you add your objects to the Array, you apply the test: if an object passes, then its position in the Array gets put into the index. Then, when you need to get objects out of the Array, you can consult the index: that way, you don't waste time going through the Array when you don't need to touch most of the objects in the first place. If you have several different tests, then you could keep several different indexes, one for each test. This takes a little more memory, but it can save a lot of time.
function insertItem(theArray, theItem, theTest, theIndex) {
theArray.push(theItem);
if (theTest(theItem)) {
theIndex.push(theArray.length - 1);
}
}
// Insert your items using insertItem, which also builds the index
var i;
for (i = 0; i < theIndex.length; i += 1) {
doSomething(theArray[theIndex[i]]);
}
Could you sort the Array so that the test can short-circuit? Imagine a setup where you've got your array set up so that everything which passes the test comes first. That way, as soon as you hit your first item that fails, you know that all of the remaining items will fail. Then you can stop your loop right away, since you know there aren't any more "good" items.
// Insert your items, keeping items which pass theTest before items which don't
var i = 0;
while (i < theArray.length) {
if (!theTest(theArray[i])) {
break;
}
doSomething(theArray[i]);
i += 1;
}
The bottom line is that this isn't so much a language question as an algorithms question. It doesn't sound like your current data structure -an unsorted Array of all possible items- is well-suited for your particular problem. Depending on what else the application needs to do, it might make more sense to use another data structure entirely, or to augment the existing structure with indexes. Either way, if it's planned carefully, will save you some time.