Develop Reference

Palindrom checker with array function

my aim is to test for a palindrome (word is the same forwards and backwards) and the log and array containing only the palindromes, so far this is the most I could come with.
const getAllPalindromes = (words) => {
return words.filter((word) => {
word.split("").reverse().join("") === word;
});
};
console.log(getAllPalindromes(["hello", "noon"]));
To my understanding this should return an array containing the items that are true from the boolean, any pointers will help a newbie thanks a lot!

You're not returning your filter conditional. You do the comparison, but then don't return it so the filter has an undefined as the return of the comparator, and thus it doesn't filter anything. Otherwise, the rest of your logic is correct!
const getAllPalindromes = (words) => words.filter((word) => word.split("").reverse().join("") === word);
console.log(getAllPalindromes(["hello", "noon"]));
Since you're using Arrow Functions we're going to use the implicit return in them to make things a little smaller especially since each function is really just a single statement. Here's the same code in a longer format for direct comparison
const getAllPalindromes = function (words) {
return words.filter(function (word) {
return word.split("").reverse().join("") === word;
});
};
console.log(getAllPalindromes(["hello", "noon"]));
The differences between Arrow Functions and Functions was already answered a long time ago, so here it is for reference.
It might also help if you use an editor or code linter that can help you catch the problems early. A missed return statement is just as easy to make as an off by one error.
Off by One errors are as easy to make as a missed return statement undefined
Happy coding!

Check for undefined and length shorter alternatives

I am curious if there are any good and shorter alternatives in modern JS to replace this kind of checks:
if (someVar === undefined || someVar.length === 0) { ... }
The question came from the current work on some obsolete codebase projects.
UPD: I am interested in arrays and strings atm, but would be also nice to compare different types

Your current code looks fine to me, but you can also alternate with the empty array and check its length:
if ((someVar || []).length === 0) {
// ...
}

You could take toString() and check the value for falsyness.
function check(v) {
if (!v || !v.toString()) console.log('empty');
}
check();
check([]);
check('');

So im assuming somVar is an array...
Functional programming is a great way to handle these kinds of things without even having if statements, I dont know what kind of "work" you need to do on the structure but lets assume some filtering mapping and reducing it to a value.
So having a function that will handle the someVar will make sure to handle the undefined case and then it will just be an empty array will will be reduced to a 0.
function handleSomeVar(someVar = []) {
return someVar && someVar
.filter(x => x.something) //lets assume we want to be sure this is defined
.map(x => x.something) // we just want an array of primitives number/string/etc
.reduce((memo, somehthing) => something, 0) //making the assumption that the something is a number.
}
or
const handleSomeVar = (someVar = []) => someVar && someVar
.filter(x => x.something)
.map(x => x.something)
.reduce((memo, something) => something, 0)
implicit return arrow functions are the hardest workers in functional programming (imo)
So then result will be a something, unless someVar is empty and then it will return 0. Reduce is a great way to handle these kinds of instances where things might exist or then might not in the case of nothing well then just return the initial value.
Functional programming in this way is meaningful, debuggable, and lots of fun!

How about a higher-order function called struggle?

imagine your wife asks you to go buy some Campion flowers. as it’s a rare kind of flower you’re not sure if you can find it the flower shop next door. so you’ll have to check every single flower shop in the town and ask for them campions. But the fact is some of the flower shops have public phone numbers and you can ask them on the phone. some of them have websites and some of them you have to walk inside.
So you start your quest from the easiest possible solutions. the point is you check every single flower shop in a unique way, as the way you talk to them or the path you walk to get to the guy. these are several functions if we talk code-wise; one function per shop.
So in the programming world, you’ll have to write 10 different query function for 10 possible solutions. The next move is to try every possible solution in the list one by one and as soon as you get a positive answer/reply/return, you’ll stop the quest and present the answer.
I thought it’s a routine, like filter and map and reducers most likely, and i believe i’m right enough.
So how about having something like this?
in erlang:
-export([struggle/2]).
struggle(Input, Solutions) ->
struggle(Input, Solutions, false).
struggle(_, [], false) ->
false;
struggle(Input, [Solution|OtherSolutions], false) ->
struggle(Input, OtherSolutions, Solution(Input));
struggle(_, _, Answer) ->
Answer.
or in javascript:
function struggle(input, solutions)
{
let strgl = (input, solutions, acc) => {
if (solutions.length === 0 && acc === undefined) return undefined;
if (acc === undefined) return strgl(input, solutions.slice(1), solutions[0](input));
return acc;
};
return strgl(input, solutions, undefined);
}
don't you think it's general enough to be a built-in higher-order function?
PS: the code is working fine and there's no need to fix it. the question is, why isn't it a built-in function?

What is the exact problem?
strugle(Input, Solutions) ->
lists:any(fun(X) -> X(Input) end, Solutions).
It is Erlang essentials. Or if you wish to return first non-false value.
strugle(Input, Solutions) ->
any_non_false(fun(X) -> X(Input) end, Solutions).
any_non_false(F, L) ->
try lists:any(fun(X) ->
case F(X) of
false -> false;
Y -> throw({return, Y})
end
end, L)
catch {return, X} -> X end.

This sounds very much like Array.prototype.find, except that your desired return value is the first truthy value that find sees, and not the element that produced the truthy value.
You could use Array.prototype.reduce to accomplish this:
function struggle(input, solutions) {
return solutions.reduce((ans, solution) =>
ans !== undefined ? ans : solution(input)
, undefined);
}
Written imperatively, this would be like:
function struggle(input, solutions) {
for (const solution of solutions) {
const ans = solution(input);
if (ans !== undefined) {
return ans;
}
}
return undefined;
}
This doesn't sound like it needs to be a built-in function, because it's not general enough. There's two steps here: (1) mapping the solutions, and (2) testing if the value is acceptable. Built-in JavaScript functions tend to be extremely general purpose. More specific functions are a better fit for utility libraries.

In Scheme you could write your code this way:
// some from SRFI-1, also called ormap in some dialects
(define (struggle input solutions)
(some (lambda (f) (f input)) solutions))
It seems JavaScript got Array.prototype.some and Erlang has lists:any/2 but both are flawed by that they don't return the truthy value but only true so you only get to know if it found an answer and not what the answer was.
In JS it's simple to make a version of some that works the same as Scheme. I'm not sure about Erlang.

Programming optional ignorance

In Javascript what is the best way to handle scenarios when you have a set of arrays to perform tasks on sets of data and sometimes you do not want to include all of the arrays but instead a combination.
My arrays are labeled in this small snippet L,C,H,V,B,A,S and to put things into perspective the code is around 2500 lines like this. (I have removed code notes from this post)
if(C[0].length>0){
L=L[1].concat(+(MIN.apply(this,L[0])).toFixed(7));
C=C[1].concat(C[0][0]);
H=H[1].concat(+(MAX.apply(this,H[0])).toFixed(7));
V=V[1].concat((V[0].reduce(function(a,b){return a+b}))/(V[0].length));
B=B[1].concat((MAX.apply(this,B[0])-MIN.apply(this,B[0]))/2);
A=A[1].concat((MAX.apply(this,A[0])-MIN.apply(this,A[0]))/2);
D=D[1].concat((D[0].reduce(function(a,b){return a+b}))/(D[0].length));
S=S[1].concat((S[0].reduce(function(a,b){return a+b}))/(S[0].length));
}
It would seem counter-productive in this case to litter the code with tones of bool conditions asking on each loop or code section if an array was included in the task and even more silly to ask inside each loop iteration with say an inline condition as these would also slow down the processing and also make the code look like a maze or rabbit hole.
Is there a logical method / library to ignore instruction or skip if an option was set to false
All I have come up with so far is kind of pointless inline thing
var op=[0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0]; //options
var L=[],C=[],H=[],V=[],B=[],A=[],D=[],S=[];
op[0]&&[L[0]=1];
op[1]&&[C[0]=1,console.log('test, do more than one thing')];
op[2]&&[H[0]=1];
op[3]&&[V[0]=1];
op[4]&&[B[0]=1];
op[5]&&[A[0]=1];
op[6]&&[A[0]=1];
It works in that it sets only C[0] and H[0] to 1 as the options require, but it fails as it needs to ask seven questions per iteration of a loop as it may be done inside a loop. Rather than make seven versions of the the loop or code section, and rather than asking questions inside each loop is there another style / method?
I have also noticed that if I create an array then at some point make it equal to NaN rather than undefined or null the console does not complain
var L=[],C=[],H=[],V=[],B=[],A=[],D=[],S=[];
L=NaN;
L[0]=1;
//1
console.log(L); //NaN
L=undefined;
L[0]=1
//TypeError: Cannot set property '0' of undefined
L=null
L[0]=1
//TypeError: Cannot set property '0' of null
Am I getting warmer? I would assume that if I performed some math on L[0] when isNaN(L)===true that the math is being done but not stored so the line isn't being ignored really..

If I understand what you want I would do something like this.
var op = [...],
opchoice = {
//these can return nothing, no operation, or a new value.
'true': function(val){ /*operation do if true*/ },
'false': function(val){ /*operation do if false*/ },
//add more operations here.
//keys must be strings, or transformed into strings with operation method.
operation: function(val){
//make the boolean a string key.
return this[''+(val == 'something')](val);
}
};
var endop = [];//need this to prevent infinite recursion(loop).
var val;
while(val = op.shift()){
//a queue operation.
endop.push(opchoice.operation(val));
}
I'm sure this is not exactly what you want, but it's close to fulfilling the want of not having a ton of conditions every where.
Your other option is on every line do this.
A = isNaN(A) ? A.concat(...) : A;
Personally I prefer the other method.

It looks like you repeat many of the operations. These operations should be functions so at least you do not redefine the same function over and over again (it is also an optimization to do so).
function get_min(x)
{
return +(MIN.apply(this, a[0])).toFixed(7);
}
function get_max(x)
{
return +(MAX.apply(this, a[0])).toFixed(7);
}
function get_average(x)
{
return (x[0].reduce(function(a, b) {return a + b})) / (x[0].length);
}
function get_mean(x)
{
return (MAX.apply(this, x[0]) - MIN.apply(this, x[0])) / 2;
}
if(C[0].length > 0)
{
L = L[1].concat(get_min(L));
C = C[1].concat(C[0][0]);
H = H[1].concat(get_max(H));
V = V[1].concat(get_average(V));
B = B[1].concat(get_mean(B));
A = A[1].concat(get_mean(A);
D = D[1].concat(get_average(D));
S = S[1].concat(get_average(S));
}
You could also define an object with prototype functions, but it is not clear whether it would be useful (outside of putting those functions in a namespace).
In regard to the idea/concept of having a test, what you've found is probably the best way in JavaScript.
op[0] && S = S[1].concat(get_average(S));
And if you want to apply multiple operators when op[0] is true, use parenthesis and commas:
op[3] && (V = V[1].concat(get_average(V)),
B = B[1].concat(get_mean(B)),
A = A[1].concat(get_mean(A));
op[0] && (D = D[1].concat(get_average(D)),
S = S[1].concat(get_average(S)));
However, this is not any clearer, to a programmer, than an if() block as shown in your question. (Actually, many programmers may have to read it 2 or 3 times before getting it.)
Yet, there is another solution which is to use another function layer. In that last example, you would do something like this:
function VBA()
{
V = V[1].concat(get_average(V));
B = B[1].concat(get_mean(B));
A = A[1].concat(get_mean(A));
}
function DS()
{
D = D[1].concat(get_average(D));
S = S[1].concat(get_average(S));
}
op = [DS,null,null,VBA,null,null,...];
for(key in op)
{
// optional: if(op[key].hasOwnProperty(key)) ... -- verify that we defined that key
if(op[key])
{
op[key](); // call function
}
}
So in other words you have an array of functions and can use a for() loop to go through the various items and if defined, call the function.
All of that will very much depend on the number of combinations you have. You mentioned 2,500 lines of code, but the number of permutations may be such that writing it one way or the other will possibly not reduce the total number of lines, but it will make it easier to maintain because many lines are moved to much smaller code snippet making the overall program easier to understand.
P.S. To make it easier to read and debug later, I strongly suggest you put more spaces everywhere, as shown above. If you want to save space, use a compressor (minimizer), Google or Yahoo! both have one that do a really good job. No need to write your code pre-compressed.

Form handling and validation in pure JavaScript

My intention is to get your thoughts and criticism about the script below, as regards the algorithm's design, performance and cross-browser compatibility.
I have just started getting into JavaScript having missed out on its awesomeness for quite a while. My background and experience is in developing C/C++/PHP based RESTful backends.
In order to understand the language and the right way of using it, I decided to do something which I am sure has been done many times before. But learning to use a new language and paradigm often entails pain anyway.
This is my attempt to create a normal form processing and validation script/ function.
In order to reduce complexity and keep code simple/clean, I decided to use HTML5 Custom Data Attributes (data-*) to assign metadata for each element in the form:
Data-Required: True or False. If set to true, this parameter makes the form-field required and so it cannot be empty. A value set to false indicates that the field is optional. Default is false.>
Data-Type: Type of validation to be performed. Examples include 'email', 'password', 'numbers' or any other 'regexp'.
A fairy simple example of such a form would be:
<form action="postlistings" id="postlistings" enctype='multipart/form-data' method="post" class="postlistings">
<ul class="login-li">
<li>
<input class="title" name="title" type="title" id="title" data-required="true" data-type="title"></a>
</li>
<li>
<textarea name="body" id="elm1" class="elm1" name="elm1" data-type="body" data-required="true" >
</textarea>
</li>
<li>
<span class="nav-btn-question">Add Listing</span>
</li>
</ul>
</form>
Reminder: This is my first piece of JavaScript code.
The idea is to call Form while passing the form name to retrieve and validate all the field values in one loop for performance. The validation involves two steps as can be guessed from the Data-* attributes described above:
i. Check for required form fields.
In case the values fail to meet step 1 requirement, an error message from configuration is pulled for the specific form value. Thus, for all values that fail to meet this requirement, an array of error messages are collected and passed on to the View.
ii. Perform respective validations.
Validations are only performed if all the values passed step 1. Otherwise, they follow the same steps as indicated in 1 above.
function Form(){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments),
formName = args[0],
callback = args.pop(),
userError = [{type: {}, param: {}}],
requiredDataParam = 'required',
typeDataParam = 'type',
form = document.forms[formName],
formLength = form.length || null,
formElement = {id: {}, name: {}, value: {}, required: {}, type: {}};
function getFormElements(){
var num = 0;
var emptyContent = false;
for (var i = 0; i < formLength; i += 1) {
var formField = form[i];
formElement.id[i] = inArray('id', formField) ? formField.id : null;
formElement.name[i] = inArray('name', formField) ? formField.name : null;
formElement.value[i] = inArray('value', formField) ? formField.value : null;
formElement.required[i] = getDataAttribute(formField, requiredDataParam);
formElement.type[i] = getDataAttribute(formField, typeDataParam);
if (formElement.required[i] === true){
if(!formElement.type[i]) {
error('Validation rule not defined!');
}
else if (!formElement.value[i]) {
userError[num++] = {'type': 'required', 'param': form[i]};
emptyContent = true;
}
}
if (emptyContent === false) {
// Perform validations only if no empty but required form values were found.
// This is so that we can collect all the empty
// inputs and their corresponding error messages.
}
}
if (userError) {
// Return empty form errors and their corresponding error messages.
}
return formElement;
};
// Removed the getFormParam function that was not used at all.
return {
getFormElements: getFormElements
}
};
Two outside functions that are used in the JS script above (from JQuery source):
var inArray = function(elem, array){
if (array.indexOf){
return array.indexOf(elem);
}
for (var i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; i++){
if (array[i] === elem){
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
// This is a cross-platform way to retrieve HTML5 custom attributes.
// Source: JQuery
var getDataAttribute = function(elem, key, data) {
if (data === undefined && elem.nodeType === 1) {
data = elem.getAttribute("data-" + key);
if (typeof data === "string") {
data = data === "true" ? true :
data === "false" ? false :
data === "null" ? null :
!CheckType.isNaN ? parseFloat(data) :
CheckType.rbrace.test(data) ? parseJSON(data) :
data;
}
else {
data = undefined;
}
}
return data;
}
An example of Config Error messages can be set as follows:
var errorMsgs = {
ERROR_email: "Please enter a valid email address.",
ERROR_password: "Your password must be at least 6 characters long. Please try another",
ERROR_user_exists: "The requested email address already exists. Please try again."
};
As I post this for your review, please ignore any styling conventions that I might not have followed. My intention is to get your expert reviews on anything I should be doing different or could do better concerning the code itself, and the algorithm.
Besides the styling conventions, all criticism and questions are welcome.

First I'd like to clear up a common misconception. Forgive me if you already understand this clearly; maybe it will be helpful for someone else.
Learning and using jQuery or a similar library does not preclude or conflict with learning the JavaScript language. jQuery is simply a DOM manipulation library which takes away many of the pain points of using the DOM. There's plenty of room to learn and use JavaScript, the language, even if you use a library to abstract away some of the DOM details.
In fact, I would argue that using the DOM directly is likely to teach bad JavaScript coding habits, because the DOM is very much not a "JavaScript-ish" API. It was designed to work identically in JavaScript and Java and potentially other languages, and so it completely fails to make good use of the features of the JavaScript language.
Of course as you said, you're using this as a learning exercise; I just don't want you to fall into the trap that I've seen many people fall into of thinking, "I don't want to learn jQuery, because I want to learn JavaScript instead!" That's a false dichotomy: you have to learn JavaScript in either case, and using jQuery for the DOM doesn't interfere with that at all.
Now some details...
While it's OK to quote property names in an object literal and when you reference the properties, it's customary - and more readable - not to quote them when they are valid JavaScript names. e.g. in your formElement object
formElement = { id: {}, name: {}, value: {}, required: {}, type: {} };
(there was a missing semicolon at the end there too)
and where you use the names you can do:
formElement.id[i] = ...
formElement.name[i] = ...
etc.
Don't run your loops backwards unless the program logic requires it. It doesn't make the code faster except possibly in the case of an extremely tight loop, and it makes it unclear whether you're just prematurely optimizing or actually need the backwards loop.
Speaking of optimization, that loop has several inArray() calls. Since each of those loops through an array, that could be more of a performance impact than the outer loop. I imagine these arrays are probably pretty short? So performance wouldn't matter at all anyway, but this is something to think about in cases where you have longer arrays and objects. In some cases you can use an object with property names and values for a faster lookup - but I didn't look closely enough at what you're doing to suggest anything.
In any case, you're using inArray() wrong! But not your fault, that is a ridiculously named function in jQuery. The name clearly suggests a boolean return value, but the function returns the zero-based array index or -1 if the value is not found. I strongly recommend renaming this function as indexOf() to match the native Array method, or arrayIndex(), or some such.
That same loop has form[i] repeated numerous times. You could do this at the top of the loop:
var field = form[i];
and then use field throughout, e.g. field.id instead of form[i].id. This is generally faster, if it matters (which it probably doesn't here), but more importantly it's easier to read.
Do not use strict boolean comparisons like if( foo === true ) and if( bar === false) unless you really need to - and those cases are rare. The code sends a signal to the reader that there is something going on that's different from the usual boolean test. The only time these particular tests should be used is when you have a variable that may contain a boolean value or may contain some other type of value, and you need to distinguish which is which.
A good example of a case where you should use tests like these is an optional parameter that defaults to true:
// Do stuff unless 'really' is explicitly set to false, e.g.
// stuff(1) will do stuff with 1, but stuff(1,false) won't.
function stuff( value, really ) {
if( really === false ) {
// don't do stuff
}
else {
// do stuff
}
}
That specific example doesn't make a lot of sense, but it should give you the idea.
Similarly, an === true test could be used in a case where need to distinguish an actual boolean true value from some other "truthy" value. Indeed, it looks like this line is a valid case for that:
if (formElement['required'][i] === true){
given that if (formElement['required'][i] comes from the getDataAttribute() function which may return a boolean or other type.
If you are just testing for truthiness, though - and this should be most of the time - simply use if( foo ) or if( ! foo ). Or similarly in a conditional expression: foo ? x : y or !foo ? x : y.
The above was a long-winded way of saying that you should change this:
if (empty_content === false) {
to:
if (!empty_content) {
Your getFormParam() function goes to some work to convert an undefined result to null. There is usually no reason to do this. I don't see any place where that function is called, so I can't advise specifically, but in general you'd be testing for truthiness on something like this, so null and undefined would both be treated as false. Or in cases where you do need to distinguish null/undefined from other values (say, an explicit false), you can easily do it with != null or == null. This is one case where the "looser" comparison performed by == and != is very useful: both null and undefined evaluate the same with these operators.
You asked to ignore coding style, but one little suggestion here: You have a mix of camelCaseNames and names_with_underscores. In JavaScript, camelCaseNames are more idiomatic for function and variable names, with PascalCaseNames for constructor functions. Of course feel free to use underscores where they make more sense, for example if you're writing code that works with database columns in that format you may want your variable names to match the column names.
Hope that helps! Keep up the good work.
Update for your new code
I'm having a bit of trouble following the logic in the code, and I think I know part of the reason. It's a combination of naming conventions and inside-out objects.
First, the name formElement is really confusing. When I see element in JavaScript, I think of either a DOM element (HTMLElement) or an array element. I'm not sure if this formElement represents one or the other or neither.
So I look at the code to figure out what it's doing, and I see it has id:{}, name:{}, ... properties, but the code later treats each of those as an Array and not an Object:
formElement.id[i] = ...
formElement.name[i] = ...
formElement.value[i] = ...
formElement.required[i] = ...
formElement.type[i] = ...
(where i is an integer index)
If that code is right, those should be arrays instead: id:[], name:[], ....
But this is a red flag. When you see yourself creating parallel arrays in JavaScript, you're probably doing it wrong. In most cases you're better off replacing the parallel arrays with a single array of objects. Each of the objects in that array represents a single slice through all your parallel arrays, with a property for each of the previous arrays.
So, this object (where I've made the correction from {} to [] to match its current use):
formElement = { id: [], name: [], value: [], required: [], type: [] };
should be:
formInfo = [];
and then where you have the code that goes:
formElement.id[i] = ...;
formElement.name[i] = ...;
formElement.value[i] = ...;
formElement.required[i] = ...;
formElement.type[i] = ...;
It should be:
var info = {
id: ...,
name: ...,
value: ...,
required: ...,
type: ...
};
formInfo.push( info );
and adjust the rest of the code to suit. For example:
formElement.required[i]
would be:
formInfo[i].required
or even simpler since it's in the same function:
info.required
And note: I'm not saying info and formInfo are great names :-) they are just placeholders so you can think of a better name. The main idea is to create an array of objects instead of a set of parallel arrays.
One last thing and then I'm out of time for now.
That getDataAttribute() function is a complicated little piece of work. You don't need it! It would be simpler would just call the underlying function directly where you need it:
var info = {
...
required: formField.getAttribute('data-required') === 'true',
type: formField.getAttribute('data-type')
};
This also gives you full control of how the attributes are interpreted - as in the === 'true' test above. (This gives you a proper boolean value, so when you test the value later you don't have to use === true on it.)
On a stylistic note, yes, I did hard code the two 'data-xxxx' names right there, and I think that's a better and more clear way to do it.. Don't let your C experience throw you off here. There's no advantage to defining a string "constant" in this particular case, unless it's something that you want to make configurable, which this isn't.
Also, even if you do make a string constant, there's a minor advantage to having the complete 'data-whatever' string instead of just 'whatever'. The reason is that when somebody reads your HTML code, they may see a string in it and search the JS code for that string. But when they search for data-whatever they won't find it if the data- prefix is automagically prepended in the JS code.
Oh, I forgot one last thing. This code:
function Form(){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments),
formName = args[0],
callback = args.pop(),
is working way too hard! Just do this instead:
function Form( formName, callback ) {
(and keep the var for the remaining variable declarations of course)

I cannot add comments yet so here is a little tip. I would separate the getFormElements() into smaller private functions. And I would add the errorMsgs to the Form function.
But for a first script in JavaScript, it is very impressive. This is actually the real reason I respond. I think it deserves more upvotes, and I would be very interested in a JS ninja responding to this question.
Good luck!