Develop Reference

Why I'm creating an empty object at the end of my array? [duplicate]

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.

Problem with array assignment in javascript [duplicate]

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.

Forcing string representation of an array key

I am trying to maintain the order of an array with mixed key types. The array contains mostly keys represented by string values -- but if you enter a numbered key it goes to the front. How can I force a key which is a number to be a string type?
E.g.
array = [];
array["one"] = "some data";
array["two"] = "some more data";
array["3"] = "this should not be the first element";
How can I make "3" a string type to prevent it from moving to the top of the index?

Oh wow did you ever open multiple cans of worms.
Javascript arrays are a special type of Javascript objects, and like all Javascript objects they can have arbitrary string properties:
const foo = [];
foo["bar"] = "hi";
However that string is a property of the array object, not an item in the array:
foo.forEach(console.log); // logs nothing
You can still access it like any other object property:
console.log(foo["bar"]); // "hi"
But it won't show up in the usual iterative constructs like c-style for loops or the map/forEach array methods.
The line in your example
array["3"] = "this should not be the first element";
is very different however, because of Javascript's playing fast and loose with type conversions this actually sets the string to the 4th slot in the array:
const bar = [];
bar["3"] = "oops!"; // equivalent to bar[3] = "oops!"
console.log(bar); // [empty x 3, "oops!"]
This piece of it is actually a good thing (other than the implicit conversion part) rather than a problem: sometimes you need a sparse array and JS supports those. Iterating it will only produce the one element:
bar.forEach((item, index) => console.log(item, index)); // ["oops", 3]
Note though that the string has the correct index of 3, and can be accessed that way even though there's nothing "in front" of it:
bar[3]; // "oops"
So the first two assignments in your example create properties on the array object, and the third assignment is the only one that actually adds an item to the array, at the 4th index (there's nothing at the first 3).
What you seem to want as Reese Casey suggests, is a plain object:
const foo = {}; // curly
foo["some string"] = "whatever";
However now the properties are basically unordered. If you want them to be in a guaranteed specific order you do want an array, but all your indicies will need to be integers, and should be sequential. You can achieve this easily by using the .push method:
foo = [];
foo.push("something");
foo.push("something else");
Now foo will have two elements, in the correct order, and index 0 and 1 respectively.
Update based on comment on the other answer:
I want some of the data to be ordered, and the rest of the data to follow
This can be accomplished through object destructuring:
const responseFromDB = {
oneKeyICareAbout: 3,
anotherKeyICareAbout: 2,
foo: 6,
bar: 7,
};
const {
oneKeyICareAbout,
anotherKeyICareAbout,
*rest,
} = responseFromDB;
const stuffToDisplay = [
oneKeyICareAbout,
anotherKeyICareAbout,
...Object.values(rest),
]; // [3, 2, 6, 7]
And at least the destructured stuff you put in the array will be ordered because by doing so you've ordered it.

Javascript arrays cannot have string indexes. This is actually working incorrectly as the index is adding a property to the array object.
Changing to an object makes more sense for this.
EDIT: Whilst below its mentioned you can have string indexes you are not actually using the array by doing so. The answer by Jared Smith goes into much more detail as to why.

The other answers explain what is happening with your array-object mixture. For having an indexable thing which can reproduce the original order, you can use a Map:
The Map object holds key-value pairs and remembers the original insertion order of the keys.
array = new Map();
array.set("one","some data");
array.set("two","some more data");
array.set("3","this should not be the first element");
console.log("Test of get:",array.get("two"));
console.log("Test of order:");
for(let entry of array)
console.log(entry);

how to access key/value pairs from json() object?

I'm calling an external service and I get the returned domain object like this:
var domainObject = responseObject.json();
This converts the response object into a js object. I can then easily access a property on this object like this
var users = domainObject.Users
Users is a collection of key/value pairs like this:
1: "Bob Smith"
2: "Jane Doe"
3: "Bill Jones"
But CDT shows users as Object type and users[0] returns undefined. So how can I get a handle to the first item in the collection? I'm assuming that some type of type cast is needed but not sure how I should go about doing this
UPDATE
Here is one way I could access the values:
//get first user key
Object.keys(responseObject.json().Users)[0]
//get first user value
Object.values(responseObject.json().Users)[0]
But I need to databind through ng2 so I was hoping for a simpler way like this:
<div>
<div *ngFor="let user of users">
User Name: {{user.value}}
<br>
</div>
</div>
Maybe I should just create a conversion function in my ng2 component which converts the object into what I need before setting the databinding variable?

UPDATED ANSWER
So after scouring through a few docs I found the "newish" Object.entries() javascript function. You can read about it here. Pretty cool.
Anyways, give this a try. I am ashamed to say that I don't have time to test it, but it should get you going in the right direction.
usersArray = []
// Turn Users object into array of [key, value] sub arrays.
userPairs = Object.entries(users);
// Add the users back into an array in the original order.
for (i=0; i < userPairs; i++) {
usersArray.push(_.find(userPairs, function(userPair) { return userPair[0] == i }))
}
ORIGINAL ANSWER
I would use either underscore.js or lodash to do this. Both are super helpful libraries in terms of dealing with data structures and keeping code to a minimum. I would personally use the _.values function in lodash. Read more about it here.. Then you could use users[0] to retrieve the first item.
The only caveat to this is that lodash doesn't guarantee the iteration sequence will be the same as it is when the object is passed in.
users = _.values(users);
console.log(users[0]);

How about this:
let user= this.users.find(() => true)
This should return the "first" one.

If your initial object is just a plain object, how do you know it is sorted. Property members are not sorted, ie: looping order is nor guaranteed. I´d extract the user names into an array and the sort that array by the second word. This should work (as long as surnames are the second word, and only single spaces are used as separators).
var l=[];
for(var x in users) {
push.l(users[x]);
}
var l1=l.sort ( (a,b) => return a.split(" ")[1]<b.split(" ")[1]);

Why does Array.prototype.push return the new length instead of something more useful?

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.