Related
I am busy learning Javascript programming for college. As I am new to javascript ,I need some clarity on a function a the book has given me to work on please.
The below is a simple calculation in JS to multiply a user input value by 100 and then multiple it on another input value.
function calcStaff() {
"use strict";
var num = document.getElementById("photognum");
var hrs = document.getElementById("photoghrs");
totalCost -= photographerCost;
photographerCost = num.value * 100 * hrs.value;
totalCost += photographerCost;
document.getElementById("estimate").innerHTML = "$" + totalCost;
}
The code works fine and everything run perfect. However I do not understand why we need the following code "totalCost -= photographerCost;"
When I comment this line out it does mess up the calculation , but I dont understand why.
Could someone please explain this Assignment Operator.
Kind Regards
Unless totalCost and photographerCost are set prior to that line within the context that the function is in, it is completely unnecessary. In fact, especially with the "use strict", if there is no other relevant code, then I am surprised that it is not breaking the code.
So actually by that logic those values must be set elsewhere in the code. They're probably set at a global level so that they can be used in other calculations. So that line of code is removing the old photographerCost from the totalCost before calculating and adding in the new photographerCost.
So I encounter a very weird problem here and am out of ideas at the moment.
I've the following function to parse and sort a json object by its property RowDate,
containing datestrings with the following format: "/Date(1389682861507+0100)/".
orderByDate: function (json) {
debug('[DataCollection::orderByDate], json before ordering: ', json);
_.each(json.LineDefinitions, function (line, i) {
json.LineDefinitions[i].Artifacts.sort(function (a, b) { //Artifacts is an Array of json subobjects containing "RowDate"
return MyApp.Utils.formatDate(a.RowDate) - MyApp.Utils.formatDate(b.RowDate);
});
});
debug('[DataCollect::orderByDate], json after ordering: ', json);
return json;
},
Here each RowDate contains a string like the one given above (different dates, though).
The formatDate-function looks like this:
MyApp.Utils.formatDate = function (date) {
var ret;
if (date instanceof Date) {
ret = '/Date(' + date.getTime()
+ (date.getTimezoneOffset() <= 0 ? '+' : '-')
+ String(('0000' + ((date.getTimezoneOffset() / 60) * -100)).substr(-4)) + ')/';
} else {
ret = new Date(Number(String(date).replace(/(^.*\()|([+-].*$)/g, '')));
}
return ret;
};
for my problematic case, the programflow uses the else-condition.
Now it works out well in IE10 and 11(sic!) and Firefox 38.0.5, the resulting order is just right. But in chromes latest stable (you've heard right), v43.., i get the wrong ordering in my console.log, leading to unexpected behaviour later on in my app.
So I found this thread over here: Different values with Date() in Chrome and IE (being in germany here, localtime might be different, so I think this might be the reason?!)
and tried to change the formatDate-else-line into the following ones, using momentjs (came to this project later on. first thing i changed was using momentjs everywhere...):
ret = moment.utc(date).toDate();
=> no effect, so I tried this from the momentjs-docs, too:
ret = moment(date, moment.ISO_8601).toDate();
but this doesn't seem to do the trick too. At the moment I am out of ideas and I hope you people here could help me out with my question: How do I change chromes Date-parsing to match ff/ie parsing? Or do I have a real big knot in my brain and some other thing went wrong here?
Would be great to hear from you!
EDIT
To make things clearer, I created this fiddle over here:
http://jsfiddle.net/o3zh2kv4/8/
in IE and firefox, the output is:
test1, test8, test2, test9, test3, test10, test4, test11, test5, test12, test6, test13, test7, test14,
which is my desired output for further logic. but in chrome, i get the following:
test8, test1, test9, test2, test10, test3, test4, test11, test5, test12, test6, test13, test7, test14,
and I don't know why it is. Would be great to get some help here! I need chrome to change the order, too.
The problem you are facing is most likely caused by the fact, that different browser (engines) implement different algorithms for sorting.
The differences you experience are (at first glance) all focused on elements that have no difference (e.g. 0 returned from your sort-function) and thus have no deterministic sort-behavior described.
To fix this you would need to implement a custom sort-algorithm, or introduce more sort-criteria.
Specifically, it's unspecified from 22.1.3.24 (https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.sort), "The elements of this array are sorted. The sort is not necessarily stable (that is, elements that compare equal do not necessarily remain in their original order). If comparefn is not undefined, it should be a function that accepts two arguments x and y and returns a negative value if x < y, zero if x = y, or a positive value if x > y."
In the current HEAD of V8 (and it's likely been like this for quite a while before I started hacking on it), Array.prototype.sort() always uses an unstable QuickSort, meaning there is no guarantee that equal values remain in the same order they were in before sorting.
Interestingly, the comment in the source indicates that we used to use a stable insertion sort on small arrays (<=22 elements), but the algorithm is not actually being used right now.
I recommend experimenting to see if you get unstable sorting behaviour with higher numbers of elements in spidermonkey or chakra, and by all means implement your own stable sort if it's needed.
I have a requirement that the user can provide arbitrary statements which can be stored in a function and called later to get a return value. A simple example of this is that userInput might be
var x = 10;
x;
I would store this via
var callback = function() {
return eval(userInput);
}
and then running callback() returns 10 as expected.
However, I also need to support the case with an explicit return statement, ie userInput might be
var x = 10;
return x;
In this case the eval method above will fail with SyntaxError: return not in function. Instead I could store callback as
var callback = new Function(userInput);
My issue is that I would like to combine these two approaches according the rule 'get explicit return value otherwise get the result of the last executed statement'. In particular this can't be done with analysis of the code at callback creation time as the user could potentially do something odd like
if(envVar < 10)
return a;
b * 0.5;
which combines both.
Any thoughts on how to structure the creation of the callback function to accommodate these possible inputs? Unfortunately it is not possible to enforce one style or the other on the user.
UPDATE to answer some of the comments below.
One solution suggested is to search for a return token and choose between new Function and eval. This doesn't work for my last example, see http://jsfiddle.net/ZGb6z/2/ - out4 should be "no" but ends up being undefined as the last executed statement is not returned.
Another suggestion is to modify the user input to add an explicit return on the last line if one is not found. Unfortunately it's not possible to know which statement will be executed last. Consider
var x = 10;
switch(x) {
case 10:
100;
break;
default:
200;
break;
}
When called it should return 100, but it would take some serious analysis to determine where to put returns for arbitrary code.
Just use a try catch, manipulating the input will be very painful for you, and try catch can't really make your code any more obtuse at this point.
var failback = function () {
try {
return eval(userInput);
} catch (e) {
return Function(userInput);
}
};
What I would really suggest is investing in a parser, kind of like how Angular does it. That kind of thing would prevent your users from doing whatever the hell they want, introducing attack vectors, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Either manage your expectations or manage your user's expectations. eval and new Function() are not suitable for your requirements if you require mixed usage of explicit and non-explicit return statements in the same user-input. You will continue to find issues following either of these routes.
Simply searching for the word return is not sufficient either... var returning = true; or var a = 'return'; or /* return true */ true; will all throw false positives.
Managing your expectations: To do such a thing you require a form of lexer and parser, at which point you can do away with eval entirely and execute your own safe functions based on the parsed input. This is the best approach when execution of user input has to occur anyway as you can ensure that nothing gets executed you do not wish to permit. If you want to cover these sort of edge cases and permit strange user input then you must be prepared to increase the size and development time of your application. I have built a few applications executing user generated code and have always come to the conclusion this is the correct route to go down.
Managing your user's expectations: Provide a guide, tell them not to mix explicit returns with non-explicit returns, these are strange coding practices anyway. Better yet explicitly tell them to include or omit the return statement. There is no shame in asking your users to follow them, especially if it allows you to improve their experience elsewhere.
There I was thinking I'd only see problems like this at the code golf stack exchange :)
My solution is here: http://jsfiddle.net/hKq87/1
It essentially replaces the 'return' statement with an exception that has a special string prefixed to it. If we see that string, we know we are actually returning a value, and return it rather than re-raising the exception.
The reason I chose to throw an exception rather than replace the return statement with a function call was because it is hard to know where the JS code evaluated for the return really ends. It could be split across multiple lines, contain several special characters and may not even have the optional semi-colon at the end. So I concatenate a string to whatever the value being returned is and throw it, as the throw keyword doesn't require it's argument to be wrapped in parentheses.
In addition, throwing exceptions provides me a convenient way to immediately terminate execution of the code block, without halting other JS execution.
Here is the callback method:
var callback = function(userInput) {
var returned = undefined;
userInput = userInput.replace(/(^|[\(\\)[\]{};,\s])return(\s*[^\s;])?/gi, function(m, b, e){
return b + " throw '__RETURNED_VALUE'" +
(e !== undefined ? "+" + e : "");
});
try {
returned = eval(userInput);
} catch (e) {
if (e.indexOf("__RETURNED_VALUE") == 0) {
returned = e.substring("__RETURNED_VALUE".length) || undefined;
}
else {
throw e;
}
}
return returned;
}
The regex above accounts for variables that may end with the string "return", that we would not want to replace as it is not a return statement. It also allows for return statements within braces, without trailing semi-colons or at the very beginning/end.
One issue with the current method is that you can not use the (rare) comma operator in a return statement, or expect numerical values to be returned correctly. The last test case in the jsfiddle demonstrates this. An example from here:
//original
return 5 * 2 + 3, 22;
//modified
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE='+ 5 * 2 + 3, 22;
//apply * operator
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE='+ 10 + 3, 22;
//apply + operators
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE=103', 22;
//apply , operator
throw 22;
This problem can be avoided by completely eliminating the prefix '__RETURNED_VALUE=' and just replacing 'return' with 'throw'. However, this means that the code provided must run without throwing exceptions, which I thought to be a harder constraint than just crafting return statements to be simple (avoiding comma operators, non-parenthesized arithmetic, etc.). In addition, if a user ever creates a return statement that we can't handle with the current code, we conveniently throw an exception for it so it easily comes to our attention.
jsFiddle Demo
Lets assume your user can be a little smarter than the average bear. We are going to ask them to specifically provide an initial value and then a callback with an expression for that value.
The main benefit of doing this is that you avoid eval, and actually have a nice implementation that is re-usable as opposed to being subject to later refactoring.
This way also provides a separation of where the input comes from and where the examination comes from. Although the provided example only shows integer input, really it could be another call with absolutely no knowledge of the value aside that it needs to conform to the callback logic.
function expression(x,callback){
return callback(x);
}
out1.innerHTML = expression(8,function(x){
return x;
});
out2.innerHTML = expression(10,function(x){
return x;
});
out3.innerHTML = expression(10,function(x){
if(x === 10) return "yes"; "no";
});
out4.innerHTML = expression(8,function(x){
return x === 10 ? "yes" : "no";
});
I have a very long conditional statement like the following:
if(test.type == 'itema' || test.type == 'itemb' || test.type == 'itemc' || test.type == 'itemd'){
// do something.
}
I was wondering if I could refactor this expression/statement into a more concise form.
Any idea on how to achieve this?
Put your values into an array, and check if your item is in the array:
if ([1, 2, 3, 4].includes(test.type)) {
// Do something
}
If a browser you support doesn't have the Array#includes method, you can use this polyfill.
Short explanation of the ~ tilde shortcut:
Update: Since we now have the includes method, there's no point in using the ~ hack anymore. Just keeping this here for people that are interested in knowing how it works and/or have encountered it in other's code.
Instead of checking if the result of indexOf is >= 0, there is a nice little shortcut:
if ( ~[1, 2, 3, 4].indexOf(test.type) ) {
// Do something
}
Here is the fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/HYJvK/
How does this work? If an item is found in the array, indexOf returns its index. If the item was not found, it'll return -1. Without getting into too much detail, the ~ is a bitwise NOT operator, which will return 0 only for -1.
I like using the ~ shortcut, since it's more succinct than doing a comparison on the return value. I wish JavaScript would have an in_array function that returns a Boolean directly (similar to PHP), but that's just wishful thinking (Update: it now does. It's called includes. See above). Note that jQuery's inArray, while sharing PHP's method signature, actually mimics the native indexOf functionality (which is useful in different cases, if the index is what you're truly after).
Important note: Using the tilde shortcut seems to be swathed in controversy, as some vehemently believe that the code is not clear enough and should be avoided at all costs (see the comments on this answer). If you share their sentiment, you should stick to the .indexOf(...) >= 0 solution.
A little longer explanation:
Integers in JavaScript are signed, which means that the left-most bit is reserved as the sign bit; a flag to indicate whether the number is positive or negative, with a 1 being negative.
Here are some sample positive numbers in 32-bit binary format:
1 : 00000000000000000000000000000001
2 : 00000000000000000000000000000010
3 : 00000000000000000000000000000011
15: 00000000000000000000000000001111
Now here are those same numbers, but negative:
-1 : 11111111111111111111111111111111
-2 : 11111111111111111111111111111110
-3 : 11111111111111111111111111111101
-15: 11111111111111111111111111110001
Why such weird combinations for the negative numbers? Simple. A negative number is simply the inverse of the positive number + 1; adding the negative number to the positive number should always yield 0.
To understand this, let's do some simple binary arithmetic.
Here is how we would add -1 to +1:
00000000000000000000000000000001 +1
+ 11111111111111111111111111111111 -1
-------------------------------------------
= 00000000000000000000000000000000 0
And here is how we would add -15 to +15:
00000000000000000000000000001111 +15
+ 11111111111111111111111111110001 -15
--------------------------------------------
= 00000000000000000000000000000000 0
How do we get those results? By doing regular addition, the way we were taught in school: you start at the right-most column, and you add up all the rows. If the sum is greater than the greatest single-digit number (which in decimal is 9, but in binary is 1) we carry the remainder over to the next column.
Now, as you'll notice, when adding a negative number to its positive number, the right-most column that is not all 0s will always have two 1s, which when added together will result in 2. The binary representation of two being 10, we carry the 1 to the next column, and put a 0 for the result in the first column. All other columns to the left have only one row with a 1, so the 1 carried over from the previous column will again add up to 2, which will then carry over... This process repeats itself till we get to the left-most column, where the 1 to be carried over has nowhere to go, so it overflows and gets lost, and we're left with 0s all across.
This system is called 2's Complement. You can read more about this here:
2's Complement Representation for Signed Integers.
Now that the crash course in 2's complement is over, you'll notice that -1 is the only number whose binary representation is 1's all across.
Using the ~ bitwise NOT operator, all the bits in a given number are inverted. The only way to get 0 back from inverting all the bits is if we started out with 1's all across.
So, all this was a long-winded way of saying that ~n will only return 0 if n is -1.
You can use switch statement with fall thru:
switch (test.type) {
case "itema":
case "itemb":
case "itemc":
case "itemd":
// do something
}
Using Science: you should do what idfah said and this for fastest speed while keep code short:
THIS IS FASTER THAN ~ Method
var x = test.type;
if (x == 'itema' ||
x == 'itemb' ||
x == 'itemc' ||
x == 'itemd') {
//do something
}
http://jsperf.com/if-statements-test-techsin
(Top set: Chrome, bottom set: Firefox)
Conclusion :
If possibilities are few and you know that certain ones are more likely to occur than you get maximum performance out if || ,switch fall through , and if(obj[keyval]).
If possibilities are many, and anyone of them could be the most occurring one, in other words, you can't know that which one is most likely to occur than you get most performance out of object lookup if(obj[keyval]) and regex if that fits.
http://jsperf.com/if-statements-test-techsin/12
i'll update if something new comes up.
If you are comparing to strings and there is a pattern, consider using regular expressions.
Otherwise, I suspect attempting to shorten it will just obfuscate your code. Consider simply wrapping the lines to make it pretty.
if (test.type == 'itema' ||
test.type == 'itemb' ||
test.type == 'itemc' ||
test.type == 'itemd') {
do something.
}
var possibilities = {
"itema": 1,
"itemb": 1,
"itemc": 1,
…};
if (test.type in possibilities) { … }
Using an object as an associative array is a pretty common thing, but since JavaScript doesn't have a native set you can use objects as cheap sets as well.
if( /^item[a-d]$/.test(test.type) ) { /* do something */ }
or if the items are not that uniform, then:
if( /^(itema|itemb|itemc|itemd)$/.test(test.type) ) { /* do something */ }
Excellent answers, but you could make the code far more readable by wrapping one of them in a function.
This is complex if statement, when you (or someone else) read the code in a years time, you will be scanning through to find the section to understand what is happening. A statement with this level of business logic will cause you to stumble for a few seconds at while you work out what you are testing. Where as code like this, will allow you to continue scanning.
if(CheckIfBusinessRuleIsTrue())
{
//Do Something
}
function CheckIfBusinessRuleIsTrue()
{
return (the best solution from previous posts here);
}
Name your function explicitly so it immediately obvious what you are testing and your code will be much easier to scan and understand.
You could put all the answers into a Javascript Set and then just call .contains() on the set.
You still have to declare all the contents, but the inline call will be shorter.
Something like:
var itemSet = new Set(["itema","itemb","itemc","itemd"]);
if( itemSet.contains( test.type ){}
One of my favorite ways of accomplishing this is with a library such as underscore.js...
var isItem = _.some(['itema','itemb','itemc','itemd'], function(item) {
return test.type === item;
});
if(isItem) {
// One of them was true
}
http://underscorejs.org/#some
another way or another awesome way i found is this...
if ('a' in oc(['a','b','c'])) { //dosomething }
function oc(a)
{
var o = {};
for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++) o[a[i]]='';
return o;
}
of course as you can see this takes things one step further and make them easy follow logic.
http://snook.ca/archives/javascript/testing_for_a_v
using operators such as ~ && || ((),()) ~~ is fine only if your code breaks later on. You won't know where to start. So readability is BIG.
if you must you could make it shorter.
('a' in oc(['a','b','c'])) && statement;
('a' in oc(['a','b','c'])) && (statements,statements);
('a' in oc(['a','b','c']))?statement:elseStatement;
('a' in oc(['a','b','c']))?(statements,statements):(elseStatements,elseStatements);
and if you want to do inverse
('a' in oc(['a','b','c'])) || statement;
Just use a switch statement instead of if statement:
switch (test.type) {
case "itema":case "itemb":case "itemc":case "itemd":
// do your process
case "other cases":...:
// do other processes
default:
// do processes when test.type does not meet your predictions.
}
Switch also works faster than comparing lots of conditionals within an if
For very long lists of strings, this idea would save a few characters (not saying I'd recommend it in real life, but it should work).
Choose a character that you know won't occur in your test.type, use it as a delimiter, stick them all into one long string and search that:
if ("/itema/itemb/itemc/itemd/".indexOf("/"+test.type+"/")>=0) {
// doSomething
}
If your strings happen to be further constrained, you could even omit the delimiters...
if ("itemaitembitemcitemd".indexOf(test.type)>=0) {
// doSomething
}
...but you'd have to be careful of false positives in that case (e.g. "embite" would match in that version)
For readability create a function for the test (yes, a one line function):
function isTypeDefined(test) {
return test.type == 'itema' ||
test.type == 'itemb' ||
test.type == 'itemc' ||
test.type == 'itemd';
}
then call it:
…
if (isTypeDefined(test)) {
…
}
...
I think there are 2 objectives when writing this kind of if condition.
brevity
readability
As such sometimes #1 might be the fastest, but I'll take #2 for easy maintenance later on. Depending on the scenario I will often opt for a variation of Walter's answer.
To start I have a globally available function as part of my existing library.
function isDefined(obj){
return (typeof(obj) != 'undefined');
}
and then when I actually want to run an if condition similar to yours I'd create an object with a list of the valid values:
var validOptions = {
"itema":1,
"itemb":1,
"itemc":1,
"itemd":1
};
if(isDefined(validOptions[test.type])){
//do something...
}
It isn't as quick as a switch/case statement and a bit more verbose than some of the other examples but I often get re-use of the object elsewhere in the code which can be quite handy.
Piggybacking on one of the jsperf samples made above I added this test and a variation to compare speeds. http://jsperf.com/if-statements-test-techsin/6 The most interesting thing I noted is that certain test combos in Firefox are much quicker than even Chrome.
This can be solved with a simple for loop:
test = {};
test.type = 'itema';
for(var i=['itema','itemb','itemc']; i[0]==test.type && [
(function() {
// do something
console.log('matched!');
})()
]; i.shift());
We use the first section of the for loop to initialize the arguments you wish to match, the second section to stop the for loop from running, and the third section to cause the loop to eventually exit.
How do I make an infinite loop in JavaScript? I'm trying to make a slideshow, which I have working, but I can't get it to loop. I can't even get it to loop twice.
The code I'm using right now is
window.onload = function start() {
slide();
}
function slide() {
var num = 0;
for (num=0;num<=10;num++) {
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-600px'",3000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1200px'",6000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1800px'",9000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='0px'",12000);
}
}
Without the for thing in there, it does go through once. When I put in a for, it either makes Firefox lock up, or just loops once. I'm sure this is a really simple thing to do, and even if it has to be loop 1,000,000 times or something instead of infinite, that'd work fine for me.
Also, I don't want to use jQuery or something that someone else created. I'm learning JavaScript, and this is partially to help me learn, and partially because I'm trying to make as many HTML5-based systems as I can.
EDIT: I think the reason it's freezing is because it executes the code all at once, and then just stores it in a cache or something. What I want it to do is go through this once, then start at the top again, which is what I've always thought loops where for. In "batch" (command prompt) scripting, this could be done with a "GOTO" command. I don't know if there's an equivalent in JS or not, but that's really my goal.
The correct approach is to use a single timer. Using setInterval, you can achieve what you want as follows:
window.onload = function start() {
slide();
}
function slide() {
var num = 0, style = document.getElementById('container').style;
window.setInterval(function () {
// increase by num 1, reset to 0 at 4
num = (num + 1) % 4;
// -600 * 1 = -600, -600 * 2 = -1200, etc
style.marginLeft = (-600 * num) + "px";
}, 3000); // repeat forever, polling every 3 seconds
}
You don't want while(true), that will lock up your system.
What you want instead is a timeout that sets a timeout on itself, something like this:
function start() {
// your code here
setTimeout(start, 3000);
}
// boot up the first call
start();
Here's a nice, tidy solution for you: (also see the live demo ->)
window.onload = function start() {
slide();
}
function slide() {
var currMarg = 0,
contStyle = document.getElementById('container').style;
setInterval(function() {
currMarg = currMarg == 1800 ? 0 : currMarg + 600;
contStyle.marginLeft = '-' + currMarg + 'px';
}, 3000);
}
Since you are trying to learn, allow me to explain how this works.
First we declare two variables: currMarg and contStyle. currMarg is an integer that we will use to track/update what left margin the container should have. We declare it outside the actual update function (in a closure), so that it can be continuously updated/access without losing its value. contStyle is simply a convenience variable that gives us access to the containers styles without having to locate the element on each interval.
Next, we will use setInterval to establish a function which should be called every 3 seconds, until we tell it to stop (there's your infinite loop, without freezing the browser). It works exactly like setTimeout, except it happens infinitely until cancelled, instead of just happening once.
We pass an anonymous function to setInterval, which will do our work for us. The first line is:
currMarg = currMarg == 1800 ? 0 : currMarg + 600;
This is a ternary operator. It will assign currMarg the value of 0 if currMarg is equal to 1800, otherwise it will increment currMarg by 600.
With the second line, we simply assign our chosen value to containers marginLeft, and we're done!
Note: For the demo, I changed the negative values to positive, so the effect would be visible.
Perhps this is what you are looking for.
var pos = 0;
window.onload = function start() {
setTimeout(slide, 3000);
}
function slide() {
pos -= 600;
if (pos === -2400)
pos = 0;
document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft= pos + "px";
setTimeout(slide, 3000);
}
You are calling setTimeout() ten times in a row, so they all expire almost at the same time. What you actually want is this:
window.onload = function start() {
slide(10);
}
function slide(repeats) {
if (repeats > 0) {
document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-600px';
document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1200px';
document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1800px';
document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='0px';
window.setTimeout(
function(){
slide(repeats - 1)
},
3000
);
}
}
This will call slide(10), which will then set the 3-second timeout to call slide(9), which will set timeout to call slide(8), etc. When slide(0) is called, no more timeouts will be set up.
You can infinitely loop easily enough via recursion.
function it_keeps_going_and_going_and_going() {
it_keeps_going_and_going_and_going();
}
it_keeps_going_and_going_and_going()
The key is not to schedule all pics at once, but to schedule a next pic each time you have a pic shown.
var current = 0;
var num_slides = 10;
function slide() {
// here display the current slide, then:
current = (current + 1) % num_slides;
setTimeout(slide, 3000);
}
The alternative is to use setInterval, which sets the function to repeat regularly (as opposed to setTimeout, which schedules the next appearance only.
Expanding on Ender's answer, let's explore our options with the improvements from ES2015.
First off, the problem in the asker's code is the fact that setTimeout is asynchronous while loops are synchronous. So the logical flaw is that they wrote multiple calls to an asynchronous function from a synchronous loop, expecting them to execute synchronously.
function slide() {
var num = 0;
for (num=0;num<=10;num++) {
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-600px'",3000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1200px'",6000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1800px'",9000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='0px'",12000);
}
}
What happens in reality, though, is that...
The loop "simultaneously" creates 44 async timeouts set to execute 3, 6, 9 and 12 seconds in the future. Asker expected the 44 calls to execute one-after-the-other, but instead, they all execute simultaneously.
3 seconds after the loop finishes, container's marginLeft is set to "-600px" 11 times.
3 seconds after that, marginLeft is set to "-1200px" 11 times.
3 seconds later, "-1800px", 11 times.
And so on.
You could solve this by changing it to:
function setMargin(margin){
return function(){
document.querySelector("#container").style.marginLeft = margin;
};
}
function slide() {
for (let num = 0; num <= 10; ++num) {
setTimeout(setMargin("-600px"), + (3000 * (num + 1)));
setTimeout(setMargin("-1200px"), + (6000 * (num + 1)));
setTimeout(setMargin("-1800px"), + (9000 * (num + 1)));
setTimeout(setMargin("0px"), + (12000 * (num + 1)));
}
}
But that is just a lazy solution that doesn't address the other issues with this implementation. There's a lot of hardcoding and general sloppiness here that ought to be fixed.
Lessons learnt from a decade of experience
As mentioned at the top of this answer, Ender already proposed a solution, but I would like to add on to it, to factor in good practice and modern innovations in the ECMAScript specification.
function format(str, ...args){
return str.split(/(%)/).map(part => (part == "%") ? (args.shift()) : (part)).join("");
}
function slideLoop(margin, selector){
const multiplier = -600;
let contStyle = document.querySelector(selector).style;
return function(){
margin = ++margin % 4;
contStyle.marginLeft = format("%px", margin * multiplier);
}
}
function slide() {
return setInterval(slideLoop(0, "#container"), 3000);
}
Let's go over how this works for the total beginners (note that not all of this is directly related to the question):
format
function format
It's immensely useful to have a printf-like string formatter function in any language. I don't understand why JavaScript doesn't seem to have one.
format(str, ...args)
... is a snazzy feature added in ES6 that lets you do lots of stuff. I believe it's called the spread operator. Syntax: ...identifier or ...array. In a function header, you can use it to specify variable arguments, and it will take every argument at and past the position of said variable argument, and stuff them into an array. You can also call a function with an array like so: args = [1, 2, 3]; i_take_3_args(...args), or you can take an array-like object and transform it into an array: ...document.querySelectorAll("div.someclass").forEach(...). This would not be possible without the spread operator, because querySelectorAll returns an "element list", which isn't a true array.
str.split(/(%)/)
I'm not good at explaining how regex works. JavaScript has two syntaxes for regex. There's the OO way (new RegExp("regex", "gi")) and there's the literal way (/insert regex here/gi). I have a profound hatred for regex because the terse syntax it encourages often does more harm than good (and also because they're extremely non-portable), but there are some instances where regex is helpful, like this one. Normally, if you called split with "%" or /%/, the resulting array would exclude the "%" delimiters from the array. But for the algorithm used here, we need them included. /(%)/ was the first thing I tried and it worked. Lucky guess, I suppose.
.map(...)
map is a functional idiom. You use map to apply a function to a list. Syntax: array.map(function). Function: must return a value and take 1-2 arguments. The first argument will be used to hold each value in the array, while the second will be used to hold the current index in the array. Example: [1,2,3,4,5].map(x => x * x); // returns [1,4,9,16,25]. See also: filter, find, reduce, forEach.
part => ...
This is an alternative form of function. Syntax: argument-list => return-value, e.g. (x, y) => (y * width + x), which is equivalent to function(x, y){return (y * width + x);}.
(part == "%") ? (args.shift()) : (part)
The ?: operator pair is a 3-operand operator called the ternary conditional operator. Syntax: condition ? if-true : if-false, although most people call it the "ternary" operator, since in every language it appears in, it's the only 3-operand operator, every other operator is binary (+, &&, |, =) or unary (++, ..., &, *). Fun fact: some languages (and vendor extensions of languages, like GNU C) implement a two-operand version of the ?: operator with syntax value ?: fallback, which is equivalent to value ? value : fallback, and will use fallback if value evaluates to false. They call it the Elvis Operator.
I should also mention the difference between an expression and an expression-statement, as I realize this may not be intuitive to all programmers. An expression represents a value, and can be assigned to an l-value. An expression can be stuffed inside parentheses and not be considered a syntax error. An expression can itself be an l-value, although most statements are r-values, as the only l-value expressions are those formed from an identifier or (e.g. in C) from a reference/pointer. Functions can return l-values, but don't count on it. Expressions can also be compounded from other, smaller expressions. (1, 2, 3) is an expression formed from three r-value expressions joined by two comma operators. The value of the expression is 3. expression-statements, on the other hand, are statements formed from a single expression. ++somevar is an expression, as it can be used as the r-value in the assignment expression-statement newvar = ++somevar; (the value of the expression newvar = ++somevar, for example, is the value that gets assigned to newvar). ++somevar; is also an expression-statement.
If ternary operators confuse you at all, apply what I just said to the ternary operator: expression ? expression : expression. Ternary operator can form an expression or an expression-statement, so both of these things:
smallest = (a < b) ? (a) : (b);
(valueA < valueB) ? (backup_database()) : (nuke_atlantic_ocean());
are valid uses of the operator. Please don't do the latter, though. That's what if is for. There are cases for this sort of thing in e.g. C preprocessor macros, but we're talking about JavaScript here.
args.shift()
Array.prototype.shift. It's the mirror version of pop, ostensibly inherited from shell languages where you can call shift to move onto the next argument. shift "pops" the first argument out of the array and returns it, mutating the array in the process. The inverse is unshift. Full list:
array.shift()
[1,2,3] -> [2,3], returns 1
array.unshift(new-element)
[element, ...] -> [new-element, element, ...]
array.pop()
[1,2,3] -> [1,2], returns 3
array.push(new-element)
[..., element] -> [..., element, new-element]
See also: slice, splice
.join("")
Array.prototype.join(string). This function turns an array into a string. Example: [1,2,3].join(", ") -> "1, 2, 3"
slide
return setInterval(slideLoop(0, "#container"), 3000);
First off, we return setInterval's return value so that it may be used later in a call to clearInterval. This is important, because JavaScript won't clean that up by itself. I strongly advise against using setTimeout to make a loop. That is not what setTimeout is designed for, and by doing that, you're reverting to GOTO. Read Dijkstra's 1968 paper, Go To Statement Considered Harmful, to understand why GOTO loops are bad practice.
Second off, you'll notice I did some things differently. The repeating interval is the obvious one. This will run forever until the interval is cleared, and at a delay of 3000ms. The value for the callback is the return value of another function, which I have fed the arguments 0 and "#container". This creates a closure, and you will understand how this works shortly.
slideLoop
function slideLoop(margin, selector)
We take margin (0) and selector ("#container") as arguments. The margin is the initial margin value and the selector is the CSS selector used to find the element we're modifying. Pretty straightforward.
const multiplier = -600;
let contStyle = document.querySelector(selector).style;
I've moved some of the hard coded elements up. Since the margins are in multiples of -600, we have a clearly labeled constant multiplier with that base value.
I've also created a reference to the element's style property via the CSS selector. Since style is an object, this is safe to do, as it will be treated as a reference rather than a copy (read up on Pass By Sharing to understand these semantics).
return function(){
margin = ++margin % 4;
contStyle.marginLeft = format("%px", margin * multiplier);
}
Now that we have the scope defined, we return a function that uses said scope. This is called a closure. You should read up on those, too. Understanding JavaScript's admittedly bizarre scoping rules will make the language a lot less painful in the long run.
margin = ++margin % 4;
contStyle.marginLeft = format("%px", margin * multiplier);
Here, we simply increment margin and modulus it by 4. The sequence of values this will produce is 1->2->3->0->1->..., which mimics exactly the behavior from the question without any complicated or hard-coded logic.
Afterwards, we use the format function defined earlier to painlessly set the marginLeft CSS property of the container. It's set to the currnent margin value multiplied by the multiplier, which as you recall was set to -600. -600 -> -1200 -> -1800 -> 0 -> -600 -> ...
There are some important differences between my version and Ender's, which I mentioned in a comment on their answer. I'm gonna go over the reasoning now:
Use document.querySelector(css_selector) instead of document.getElementById(id)
querySelector was added in ES6, if I'm not mistaken. querySelector (returns first found element) and querySelectorAll (returns a list of all found elements) are part of the prototype chain of all DOM elements (not just document), and take a CSS selector, so there are other ways to find an element than just by its ID. You can search by ID (#idname), class (.classname), relationships (div.container div div span, p:nth-child(even)), and attributes (div[name], a[href=https://google.com]), among other things.
Always track setInterval(fn, interval)'s return value so it can later be closed with clearInterval(interval_id)
It's not good design to leave an interval running forever. It's also not good design to write a function that calls itself via setTimeout. That is no different from a GOTO loop. The return value of setInterval should be stored and used to clear the interval when it's no longer needed. Think of it as a form of memory management.
Put the interval's callback into its own formal function for readability and maintainability
Constructs like this
setInterval(function(){
...
}, 1000);
Can get clunky pretty easily, especially if you are storing the return value of setInterval. I strongly recommend putting the function outside of the call and giving it a name so that it's clear and self-documenting. This also makes it possible to call a function that returns an anonymous function, in case you're doing stuff with closures (a special type of object that contains the local state surrounding a function).
Array.prototype.forEach is fine.
If state is kept with the callback, the callback should be returned from another function (e.g. slideLoop) to form a closure
You don't want to mush state and callbacks together the way Ender did. This is mess-prone and can become hard to maintain. The state should be in the same function that the anonymous function comes from, so as to clearly separate it from the rest of the world. A better name for slideLoop could be makeSlideLoop, just to make it extra clear.
Use proper whitespace. Logical blocks that do different things should be separated by one empty line
This:
print(some_string);
if(foo && bar)
baz();
while((some_number = some_fn()) !== SOME_SENTINEL && ++counter < limit)
;
quux();
is much easier to read than this:
print(some_string);
if(foo&&bar)baz();
while((some_number=some_fn())!==SOME_SENTINEL&&++counter<limit);
quux();
A lot of beginners do this. Including little 14-year-old me from 2009, and I didn't unlearn that bad habit until probably 2013. Stop trying to crush your code down so small.
Avoid "string" + value + "string" + .... Make a format function or use String.prototype.replace(string/regex, new_string)
Again, this is a matter of readability. This:
format("Hello %! You've visited % times today. Your score is %/% (%%).",
name, visits, score, maxScore, score/maxScore * 100, "%"
);
is much easier to read than this horrific monstrosity:
"Hello " + name + "! You've visited " + visits + "% times today. " +
"Your score is " + score + "/" + maxScore + " (" + (score/maxScore * 100) +
"%).",
edit: I'm pleased to point out that I made in error in the above snippet, which in my opinion is a great demonstration of how error-prone this method of string building is.
visits + "% times today"
^ whoops
It's a good demonstration because the entire reason I made that error, and didn't notice it for as long as I did(n't), is because the code is bloody hard to read.
Always surround the arguments of your ternary expressions with parens. It aids readability and prevents bugs.
I borrow this rule from the best practices surrounding C preprocessor macros. But I don't really need to explain this one; see for yourself:
let myValue = someValue < maxValue ? someValue * 2 : 0;
let myValue = (someValue < maxValue) ? (someValue * 2) : (0);
I don't care how well you think you understand your language's syntax, the latter will ALWAYS be easier to read than the former, and readability is the the only argument that is necessary. You read thousands of times more code than you write. Don't be a jerk to your future self long-term just so you can pat yourself on the back for being clever in the short term.
Here:
window.onload = function start() {
slide();
}
function slide() {
var num = 0;
for (num=0;num==10;) {
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-600px'",3000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1200px'",6000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1800px'",9000);
setTimeout("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='0px'",12000);
}
}
That makes it keep looping alright! That's why it isn't runnable here.
try this:
window.onload = function start() {
slide();
}
function slide() {
setInterval("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-600px'",3000);
setInterval("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1200px'",6000);
setInterval("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='-1800px'",9000);
setInterval("document.getElementById('container').style.marginLeft='0px'",12000);
}
setInterval is basically an 'infinite loop' and it wont black up the browser. it waits the required time, then goes again
you can use requestAnimationFrame() function like in the below,
function unlimited () {
requestAnimationFrame(unlimited);
console.log("arian")
}
unlimited();