Related
I know that there were a lot of topics like this. And I know the basics: .forEach() operates on original array and .map() on the new one.
In my case:
function practice (i){
return i+1;
};
var a = [ -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];
var b = [ 0 ];
var c = [ 0 ];
console.log(a);
b = a.forEach(practice);
console.log("=====");
console.log(a);
console.log(b);
c = a.map(practice);
console.log("=====");
console.log(a);
console.log(c);
And this is output:
[ -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
=====
[ -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
undefined
=====
[ -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
[ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
I can't understand why using practice changes value of b to undefined.
I'm sorry if this is silly question, but I'm quite new in this language and answers I found so far didn't satisfy me.
They are not one and the same. Let me explain the difference.
forEach: This iterates over a list and applies some operation with side effects to each list member (example: saving every list item to the database) and does not return anything.
map: This iterates over a list, transforms each member of that list, and returns another list of the same size with the transformed members (example: transforming list of strings to uppercase). It does not mutate the array on which it is called (although the callback function may do so).
References
Array.prototype.forEach() - JavaScript | MDN
Array.prototype.map() - JavaScript | MDN
Array.forEach “executes a provided function once per array element.”
Array.map “creates a new array with the results of calling a provided function on every element in this array.”
So, forEach doesn’t actually return anything. It just calls the function for each array element and then it’s done. So whatever you return within that called function is simply discarded.
On the other hand, map will similarly call the function for each array element but instead of discarding its return value, it will capture it and build a new array of those return values.
This also means that you could use map wherever you are using forEach but you still shouldn’t do that so you don’t collect the return values without any purpose. It’s just more efficient to not collect them if you don’t need them.
forEach()
map()
Functionality
Performs given operation on each element of the array
Performs given "transformation" on a "copy" of each element
Return value
Returns undefined
Returns new array with transformed elements, leaving back original array unchanged.
Preferrable usage scenario and example
Performing non-tranformation like processing on each element. For example, saving all elements in the database.
Obtaining array containing output of some processing done on each element of the array. For example, obtaining array of lengths of each string in the array
forEach() example
chars = ['Hello' , 'world!!!'] ;
var retVal = chars.forEach(function(word){
console.log("Saving to db: " + word)
})
console.log(retVal) //undefined
map() example
chars = ['Hello' , 'world!!!'] ;
var lengths = chars.map(function(word){
return word.length
})
console.log(lengths) //[5,8]
The main difference that you need to know is .map() returns a new array while .forEach() doesn't. That is why you see that difference in the output. .forEach() just operates on every value in the array.
Read up:
Array.prototype.forEach() - JavaScript | MDN
Array.prototype.map() - JavaScript | MDN
You might also want to check out:
- Array.prototype.every() - JavaScript | MDN
Performance Analysis
For loops performs faster than map or foreach as number of elements in a array increases.
let array = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 20000000; i++) {
array.push(i)
}
console.time('map');
array.map(num => {
return num * 4;
});
console.timeEnd('map');
console.time('forEach');
array.forEach((num, index) => {
return array[index] = num * 4;
});
console.timeEnd('forEach');
console.time('for');
for (i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
array[i] = array[i] * 2;
}
console.timeEnd('for');
forEach: If you want to perform an action on the elements of an Array and it is same as you use for loop. The result of this method does not give us an output buy just loop through the elements.
map: If you want to perform an action on the elements of an array and also you want to store the output of your action into an Array. This is similar to for loop within a function that returns the result after each iteration.
Hope this helps.
map returns a new array.
forEach has no return value.
That's the heart of the difference. Most of the other answers here say effectively that, but in a much more convoluted way.
forEach() :
return value : undefined
originalArray : not modified after the method call
newArray is not created after the end of method call.
map() :
return value : new Array populated with the results of calling a provided function on every element in the calling array
originalArray : not modified after the method call
newArray is created after the end of method call.
Conclusion:
Since map builds a new array, using it when you aren't using the returned array is an anti-pattern; use forEach or for-of instead.
The difference lies in what they return. After execution:
arr.map()
returns an array of elements resulting from the processed function; while:
arr.forEach()
returns undefined.
one of the shuttle difference not mentioned here is that forEach() can loop over static (not live) NodeList while map() cannot
//works perfectly
document.querySelectorAll('.score').forEach(element=>console.log(element));
//Uncaught TypeError: document.querySelectorAll(...).map is not a function
document.querySelectorAll('.score').map(element=>console.log(element));
Diffrence between Foreach & map :
Map() : If you use map then map can return new array by iterating main array.
Foreach() : If you use Foreach then it can not return anything for each can iterating main array.
useFul link : use this link for understanding diffrence
https://codeburst.io/javascript-map-vs-foreach-f38111822c0f
Difference between forEach() & map()
forEach() just loop through the elements. It's throws away return values and always returns undefined.The result of this method does not give us an output .
map() loop through the elements allocates memory and stores return values by iterating main array
Example:
var numbers = [2,3,5,7];
var forEachNum = numbers.forEach(function(number){
return number
})
console.log(forEachNum)
//output undefined
var mapNum = numbers.map(function(number){
return number
})
console.log(mapNum)
//output [2,3,5,7]
map() is faster than forEach()
One thing to point out is that both methods skips uninitialized values, but map keeps them in the returned array.
var arr = [1, , 3];
arr.forEach(function(element) {
console.log(element);
});
//Expected output: 1 3
console.log(arr.map(element => element));
//Expected output: [1, undefined, 3];
Performance Analysis (again - not very scientific)
In my experience sometime .map() can be faster than .foreach()
let rows = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
// console.log("here", i)
rows.push({ id: i, title: 'ciao' });
}
const now1 = Date.now();
rows.forEach(row => {
if (!row.event_title) {
row.event_title = `no title ${row.event_type}`;
}
});
const now2 = Date.now();
rows = rows.map(row => {
if (!row.event_title) {
row.event_title = `no title ${row.event_type}`;
}
return row;
});
const now3 = Date.now();
const time1 = now2 - now1;
const time2 = now3 - now2;
console.log('forEach time', time1);
console.log('.map time', time2);
On my macbook pro (late 2013)
forEach time 1909
.map time 444
.map and .forEach will do just about then same thing, until you start operating on arrays with millions of elements. .map will create another collection with the same size (and possibly type, depending on the array species) which could use up a LOT of memory. .forEach will not do this.
const arr = [...Array(100000000).keys()];
console.time("for");
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {}
console.timeEnd("for");
console.time("while");
let j = 0;
while (j < arr.length) {
j++;
}
console.timeEnd("while");
console.time("dowhile");
let k = 0;
do {
k++;
} while (k < arr.length);
console.timeEnd("dowhile");
console.time("forEach");
arr.forEach((element) => {});
console.timeEnd("forEach");
VM35:6 for: 45.998046875 ms
VM35:13 while: 154.581787109375 ms
VM35:20 dowhile: 141.97216796875 ms
VM35:24 forEach: 776.469970703125 ms
Map implicitly returns while forEach does not.
This is why when you're coding a JSX application, you almost always use map instead of forEach to display content in React.
How can I loop through all the entries in an array using JavaScript?
TL;DR
Your best bets are usually
a for-of loop (ES2015+ only; spec | MDN) - simple and async-friendly
for (const element of theArray) {
// ...use `element`...
}
forEach (ES5+ only; spec | MDN) (or its relatives some and such) - not async-friendly (but see details)
theArray.forEach(element => {
// ...use `element`...
});
a simple old-fashioned for loop - async-friendly
for (let index = 0; index < theArray.length; ++index) {
const element = theArray[index];
// ...use `element`...
}
(rarely) for-in with safeguards - async-friendly
for (const propertyName in theArray) {
if (/*...is an array element property (see below)...*/) {
const element = theArray[propertyName];
// ...use `element`...
}
}
Some quick "don't"s:
Don't use for-in unless you use it with safeguards or are at least aware of why it might bite you.
Don't use map if you're not using its return value.(There's sadly someone out there teaching map [spec / MDN] as though it were forEach — but as I write on my blog, that's not what it's for. If you aren't using the array it creates, don't use map.)
Don't use forEach if the callback does asynchronous work and you want the forEach to wait until that work is done (because it won't).
But there's lots more to explore, read on...
JavaScript has powerful semantics for looping through arrays and array-like objects. I've split the answer into two parts: Options for genuine arrays, and options for things that are just array-like, such as the arguments object, other iterable objects (ES2015+), DOM collections, and so on.
Okay, let's look at our options:
For Actual Arrays
You have five options (two supported basically forever, another added by ECMAScript 5 ["ES5"], and two more added in ECMAScript 2015 ("ES2015", aka "ES6"):
Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
Use forEach and related (ES5+)
Use a simple for loop
Use for-in correctly
Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
(You can see those old specs here: ES5, ES2015, but both have been superceded; the current editor's draft is always here.)
Details:
1. Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
ES2015 added iterators and iterables to JavaScript. Arrays are iterable (so are strings, Maps, and Sets, as well as DOM collections and lists, as you'll see later). Iterable objects provide iterators for their values. The new for-of statement loops through the values returned by an iterator:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (const element of a) { // You can use `let` instead of `const` if you like
console.log(element);
}
// a
// b
// c
It doesn't get simpler than that! Under the covers, that gets an iterator from the array and loops through the values the iterator returns. The iterator provided by arrays provides the values of the array elements, in order beginning to end.
Notice how element is scoped to each loop iteration; trying to use element after the end of the loop would fail because it doesn't exist outside the loop body.
In theory, a for-of loop involves several function calls (one to get the iterator, then one to get each value from it). Even when that's true, it's nothing to worry about, function calls are very cheap in modern JavaScript engines (it bothered me for forEach [below] until I looked into it; details). But additionally, JavaScript engines optimize those calls away (in performance-critical code) when dealing with native iterators for things like arrays.
for-of is entirely async-friendly. If you need the work in a loop body to be done in series (not in parallel), an await in the loop body will wait for the promise to settle before continuing. Here's a silly example:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (const message of messages) {
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
Note how the words appear with a delay before each one.
It's a matter of coding style, but for-of is the first thing I reach for when looping through anything iterable.
2. Use forEach and related
In any even vaguely-modern environment (so, not IE8) where you have access to the Array features added by ES5, you can use forEach (spec | MDN) if you're only dealing with synchronous code (or you don't need to wait for an asynchronous process to finish during the loop):
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
a.forEach((element) => {
console.log(element);
});
forEach accepts a callback function and, optionally, a value to use as this when calling that callback (not used above). The callback is called for each element in the array, in order, skipping non-existent elements in sparse arrays. Although I only used one parameter above, the callback is called with three arguments: The element for that iteration, the index of that element, and a reference to the array you're iterating over (in case your function doesn't already have it handy).
Like for-of, forEach has the advantage that you don't have to declare indexing and value variables in the containing scope; in this case, they're supplied as arguments to the iteration function, and so nicely scoped to just that iteration.
Unlike for-of, forEach has the disadvantage that it doesn't understand async functions and await. If you use an async function as the callback, forEach does not wait for that function's promise to settle before continuing. Here's the async example from for-of using forEach instead — notice how there's an initial delay, but then all the text appears right away instead of waiting:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
// INCORRECT, doesn't wait before continuing,
// doesn't handle promise rejections
messages.forEach(async message => {
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
});
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
forEach is the "loop through them all" function, but ES5 defined several other useful "work your way through the array and do things" functions, including:
every (spec | MDN) - stops looping the first time the callback returns a falsy value
some (spec | MDN) - stops looping the first time the callback returns a truthy value
filter (spec | MDN) - creates a new array including elements where the callback returns a truthy value, omitting the ones where it doesn't
map (spec | MDN) - creates a new array from the values returned by the callback
reduce (spec | MDN) - builds up a value by repeatedly calling the callback, passing in previous values; see the spec for the details
reduceRight (spec | MDN) - like reduce, but works in descending rather than ascending order
As with forEach, if you use an async function as your callback, none of those waits for the function's promise to settle. That means:
Using an async function callback is never appropriate with every, some, and filter since they will treat the returned promise as though it were a truthy value; they don't wait for the promise to settle and then use the fulfillment value.
Using an async function callback is often appropriate with map, if the goal is to turn an array of something into an array of promises, perhaps for passing to one of the promise combinator functions (Promise.all, Promise.race, promise.allSettled, or Promise.any).
Using an async function callback is rarely appropriate with reduce or reduceRight, because (again) the callback will always return a promise. But there is an idiom of building a chain of promises from an array that uses reduce (const promise = array.reduce((p, element) => p.then(/*...something using `element`...*/));), but usually in those cases a for-of or for loop in an async function will be clearer and easier to debug.
3. Use a simple for loop
Sometimes the old ways are the best:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = 0; index < a.length; ++index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
If the length of the array won't change during the loop, and it's in highly performance-sensitive code, a slightly more complicated version grabbing the length up front might be a tiny bit faster:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = 0, len = a.length; index < len; ++index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
And/or counting backward:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = a.length - 1; index >= 0; --index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
But with modern JavaScript engines, it's rare you need to eke out that last bit of juice.
Before ES2015, the loop variable had to exist in the containing scope, because var only has function-level scope, not block-level scope. But as you saw in the examples above, you can use let within the for to scope the variables to just the loop. And when you do that, the index variable is recreated for each loop iteration, meaning closures created in the loop body keep a reference to the index for that specific iteration, which solves the old "closures in loops" problem:
// (The `NodeList` from `querySelectorAll` is array-like)
const divs = document.querySelectorAll("div");
for (let index = 0; index < divs.length; ++index) {
divs[index].addEventListener('click', e => {
console.log("Index is: " + index);
});
}
<div>zero</div>
<div>one</div>
<div>two</div>
<div>three</div>
<div>four</div>
In the above, you get "Index is: 0" if you click the first and "Index is: 4" if you click the last. This does not work if you use var instead of let (you'd always see "Index is: 5").
Like for-of, for loops work well in async functions. Here's the earlier example using a for loop:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (let i = 0; i < messages.length; ++i) {
const message = messages[i];
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
4. Use for-in correctly
for-in isn't for looping through arrays, it's for looping through the names of an object's properties. It does often seem to work for looping through arrays as a by-product of the fact that arrays are objects, but it doesn't just loop through the array indexes, it loops through all enumerable properties of the object (including inherited ones). (It also used to be that the order wasn't specified; it is now [details in this other answer], but even though the order is specified now, the rules are complex, there are exceptions, and relying on the order is not best practice.)
The only real use cases for for-in on an array are:
It's a sparse array with massive gaps in it, or
You're using non-element properties on the array object and you want to include them in the loop
Looking only at that first example: You can use for-in to visit those sparse array elements if you use appropriate safeguards:
// `a` is a sparse array
const a = [];
a[0] = "a";
a[10] = "b";
a[10000] = "c";
for (const name in a) {
if (Object.hasOwn(a, name) && // These checks are
/^0$|^[1-9]\d*$/.test(name) && // explained
name <= 4294967294 // below
) {
const element = a[name];
console.log(a[name]);
}
}
Note the three checks:
That the object has its own property by that name (not one it inherits from its prototype; this check is also often written as a.hasOwnProperty(name) but ES2022 adds Object.hasOwn which can be more reliable), and
That the name is all decimal digits (e.g., normal string form, not scientific notation), and
That the name's value when coerced to a number is <= 2^32 - 2 (which is 4,294,967,294). Where does that number come from? It's part of the definition of an array index in the specification. Other numbers (non-integers, negative numbers, numbers greater than 2^32 - 2) are not array indexes. The reason it's 2^32 - 2 is that that makes the greatest index value one lower than 2^32 - 1, which is the maximum value an array's length can have. (E.g., an array's length fits in a 32-bit unsigned integer.)
...although with that said, most code only does the hasOwnProperty check.
You wouldn't do that in inline code, of course. You'd write a utility function. Perhaps:
// Utility function for antiquated environments without `forEach`
const hasOwn = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call.bind(Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty);
const rexNum = /^0$|^[1-9]\d*$/;
function sparseEach(array, callback, thisArg) {
for (const name in array) {
const index = +name;
if (hasOwn(a, name) &&
rexNum.test(name) &&
index <= 4294967294
) {
callback.call(thisArg, array[name], index, array);
}
}
}
const a = [];
a[5] = "five";
a[10] = "ten";
a[100000] = "one hundred thousand";
a.b = "bee";
sparseEach(a, (value, index) => {
console.log("Value at " + index + " is " + value);
});
Like for, for-in works well in asynchronous functions if the work within it needs to be done in series.
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (const name in messages) {
if (messages.hasOwnProperty(name)) { // Almost always this is the only check people do
const message = messages[name];
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
5. Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
for-of uses an iterator implicitly, doing all the scut work for you. Sometimes, you might want to use an iterator explicitly. It looks like this:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
const it = a.values(); // Or `const it = a[Symbol.iterator]();` if you like
let entry;
while (!(entry = it.next()).done) {
const element = entry.value;
console.log(element);
}
An iterator is an object matching the Iterator definition in the specification. Its next method returns a new result object each time you call it. The result object has a property, done, telling us whether it's done, and a property value with the value for that iteration. (done is optional if it would be false, value is optional if it would be undefined.)
What you get for value varies depending on the iterator. On arrays, the default iterator provides the value of each array element ("a", "b", and "c" in the example earlier). Arrays also have three other methods that return iterators:
values(): This is an alias for the [Symbol.iterator] method that returns the default iterator.
keys(): Returns an iterator that provides each key (index) in the array. In the example above, it would provide "0", then "1", then "2" (yes, as strings).
entries(): Returns an iterator that provides [key, value] arrays.
Since iterator objects don't advance until you call next, they work well in async function loops. Here's the earlier for-of example using the iterator explicitly:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
const it = messages.values()
while (!(entry = it.next()).done) {
await delay(400);
const element = entry.value;
console.log(element);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
For Array-Like Objects
Aside from true arrays, there are also array-like objects that have a length property and properties with all-digits names: NodeList instances, HTMLCollection instances, the arguments object, etc. How do we loop through their contents?
Use most of the options above
At least some, and possibly most or even all, of the array approaches above apply equally well to array-like objects:
Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
for-of uses the iterator provided by the object (if any). That includes host-provided objects (like DOM collections and lists). For instance, HTMLCollection instances from getElementsByXYZ methods and NodeLists instances from querySelectorAll both support iteration. (This is defined quite subtly by the HTML and DOM specifications. Basically, any object with length and indexed access is automatically iterable. It doesn't have to be marked iterable; that is used only for collections that, in addition to being iterable, support forEach, values, keys, and entries methods. NodeList does; HTMLCollection doesn't, but both are iterable.)
Here's an example of looping through div elements:
const divs = document.querySelectorAll("div");
for (const div of divs) {
div.textContent = Math.random();
}
<div>zero</div>
<div>one</div>
<div>two</div>
<div>three</div>
<div>four</div>
Use forEach and related (ES5+)
The various functions on Array.prototype are "intentionally generic" and can be used on array-like objects via Function#call (spec | MDN) or Function#apply (spec | MDN). (If you have to deal with IE8 or earlier [ouch], see the "Caveat for host-provided objects" at the end of this answer, but it's not an issue with vaguely-modern browsers.)
Suppose you wanted to use forEach on a Node's childNodes collection (which, being an HTMLCollection, doesn't have forEach natively). You'd do this:
Array.prototype.forEach.call(node.childNodes, (child) => {
// Do something with `child`
});
(Note, though, that you could just use for-of on node.childNodes.)
If you're going to do that a lot, you might want to grab a copy of the function reference into a variable for reuse, e.g.:
// (This is all presumably in a module or some scoping function)
const forEach = Array.prototype.forEach.call.bind(Array.prototype.forEach);
// Then later...
forEach(node.childNodes, (child) => {
// Do something with `child`
});
Use a simple for loop
Perhaps obviously, a simple for loop works for array-like objects.
Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
See #1.
You may be able to get away with for-in (with safeguards), but with all of these more appropriate options, there's no reason to try.
Create a true array
Other times, you may want to convert an array-like object into a true array. Doing that is surprisingly easy:
Use Array.from
Array.from (spec) | (MDN) (ES2015+, but easily polyfilled) creates an array from an array-like object, optionally passing the entries through a mapping function first. So:
const divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll("div"));
...takes the NodeList from querySelectorAll and makes an array from it.
The mapping function is handy if you were going to map the contents in some way. For instance, if you wanted to get an array of the tag names of the elements with a given class:
// Typical use (with an arrow function):
const divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".some-class"), element => element.tagName);
// Traditional function (since `Array.from` can be polyfilled):
var divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".some-class"), function(element) {
return element.tagName;
});
Use spread syntax (...)
It's also possible to use ES2015's spread syntax. Like for-of, this uses the iterator provided by the object (see #1 in the previous section):
const trueArray = [...iterableObject];
So for instance, if we want to convert a NodeList into a true array, with spread syntax this becomes quite succinct:
const divs = [...document.querySelectorAll("div")];
Use the slice method of arrays
We can use the slice method of arrays, which like the other methods mentioned above is "intentionally generic" and so can be used with array-like objects, like this:
const trueArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arrayLikeObject);
So for instance, if we want to convert a NodeList into a true array, we could do this:
const divs = Array.prototype.slice.call(document.querySelectorAll("div"));
(If you still have to handle IE8 [ouch], will fail; IE8 didn't let you use host-provided objects as this like that.)
Caveat for host-provided objects
If you use Array.prototype functions with host-provided array-like objects (for example, DOM collections and such provided by the browser rather than the JavaScript engine), obsolete browsers like IE8 didn't necessarily handle that way, so if you have to support them, be sure to test in your target environments. But it's not an issue with vaguely-modern browsers. (For non-browser environments, naturally it'll depend on the environment.)
Note: This answer is hopelessly out-of-date. For a more modern approach, look at the methods available on an array. Methods of interest might be:
forEach
map
filter
zip
reduce
every
some
The standard way to iterate an array in JavaScript is a vanilla for-loop:
var length = arr.length,
element = null;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
element = arr[i];
// Do something with element
}
Note, however, that this approach is only good if you have a dense array, and each index is occupied by an element. If the array is sparse, then you can run into performance problems with this approach, since you will iterate over a lot of indices that do not really exist in the array. In this case, a for .. in-loop might be a better idea. However, you must use the appropriate safeguards to ensure that only the desired properties of the array (that is, the array elements) are acted upon, since the for..in-loop will also be enumerated in legacy browsers, or if the additional properties are defined as enumerable.
In ECMAScript 5 there will be a forEach method on the array prototype, but it is not supported in legacy browsers. So to be able to use it consistently you must either have an environment that supports it (for example, Node.js for server side JavaScript), or use a "Polyfill". The Polyfill for this functionality is, however, trivial and since it makes the code easier to read, it is a good polyfill to include.
If you’re using the jQuery library, you can use jQuery.each:
$.each(yourArray, function(index, value) {
// do your stuff here
});
EDIT :
As per question, user want code in javascript instead of jquery so the edit is
var length = yourArray.length;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
// Do something with yourArray[i].
}
Loop backwards
I think the reverse for loop deserves a mention here:
for (var i = array.length; i--; ) {
// process array[i]
}
Advantages:
You do not need to declare a temporary len variable, or compare against array.length on each iteration, either of which might be a minute optimisation.
Removing siblings from the DOM in reverse order is usually more efficient. (The browser needs to do less shifting of elements in its internal arrays.)
If you modify the array while looping, at or after index i (for example you remove or insert an item at array[i]), then a forward loop would skip the item that shifted left into position i, or re-process the ith item that was shifted right. In a traditional for loop, you could update i to point to the next item that needs processing - 1, but simply reversing the direction of iteration is often a simpler and more elegant solution.
Similarly, when modifying or removing nested DOM elements, processing in reverse can circumvent errors. For example, consider modifying the innerHTML of a parent node before handling its children. By the time the child node is reached it will be detached from the DOM, having been replaced by a newly created child when the parent's innerHTML was written.
It is shorter to type, and read, than some of the other options available. Although it loses to forEach() and to ES6's for ... of.
Disadvantages:
It processes the items in reverse order. If you were building a new array from the results, or printing things on screen, naturally the output will be reversed with respect to the original order.
Repeatedly inserting siblings into the DOM as a first child in order to retain their order is less efficient. (The browser would keep having to shift things right.) To create DOM nodes efficiently and in order, just loop forwards and append as normal (and also use a "document fragment").
The reverse loop is confusing to junior developers. (You may consider that an advantage, depending on your outlook.)
Should I always use it?
Some developers use the reverse for loop by default, unless there is a good reason to loop forwards.
Although the performance gains are usually insignificant, it sort of screams:
"Just do this to every item in the list, I don't care about the order!"
However in practice that is not actually a reliable indication of intent, since it is indistinguishable from those occasions when you do care about the order, and really do need to loop in reverse. So in fact another construct would be needed to accurately express the "don't care" intent, something currently unavailable in most languages, including ECMAScript, but which could be called, for example, forEachUnordered().
If order doesn't matter, and efficiency is a concern (in the innermost loop of a game or animation engine), then it may be acceptable to use the reverse for loop as your go-to pattern. Just remember that seeing a reverse for loop in existing code does not necessarily mean that the order irrelevant!
It was better to use forEach()
In general for higher level code where clarity and safety are greater concerns, I previously recommended using Array::forEach as your default pattern for looping (although these days I prefer to use for..of). Reasons to prefer forEach over a reverse loop are:
It is clearer to read.
It indicates that i is not going to be shifted within the block (which is always a possible surprise hiding in long for and while loops).
It gives you a free scope for closures.
It reduces leakage of local variables and accidental collision with (and mutation of) outer variables.
Then when you do see the reverse for loop in your code, that is a hint that it is reversed for a good reason (perhaps one of the reasons described above). And seeing a traditional forward for loop may indicate that shifting can take place.
(If the discussion of intent makes no sense to you, then you and your code may benefit from watching Crockford's lecture on Programming Style & Your Brain.)
It is now even better to use for..of!
There is a debate about whether for..of or forEach() are preferable:
For maximum browser support, for..of requires a polyfill for iterators, making your app slightly slower to execute and slightly larger to download.
For that reason (and to encourage use of map and filter), some front-end style guides ban for..of completely!
But the above concerns is not applicable to Node.js applications, where for..of is now well supported.
And furthermore await does not work inside forEach(). Using for..of is the clearest pattern in this case.
Personally, I tend to use whatever looks easiest to read, unless performance or minification has become a major concern. So these days I prefer to use for..of instead of forEach(), but I will always use map or filter or find or some when applicable.
(For the sake of my colleagues, I rarely use reduce.)
How does it work?
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { ... } // Forwards
for (var i = array.length; i--; ) { ... } // Reverse
You will notice that i-- is the middle clause (where we usually see a comparison) and the last clause is empty (where we usually see i++). That means that i-- is also used as the condition for continuation. Crucially, it is executed and checked before each iteration.
How can it start at array.length without exploding?
Because i-- runs before each iteration, on the first iteration we will actually be accessing the item at array.length - 1 which avoids any issues with Array-out-of-bounds undefined items.
Why doesn't it stop iterating before index 0?
The loop will stop iterating when the condition i-- evaluates to a falsey value (when it yields 0).
The trick is that unlike --i, the trailing i-- operator decrements i but yields the value before the decrement. Your console can demonstrate this:
> var i = 5; [i, i--, i];
[5, 5, 4]
So on the final iteration, i was previously 1 and the i-- expression changes it to 0 but actually yields 1 (truthy), and so the condition passes. On the next iteration i-- changes i to -1 but yields 0 (falsey), causing execution to immediately drop out of the bottom of the loop.
In the traditional forwards for loop, i++ and ++i are interchangeable (as Douglas Crockford points out). However in the reverse for loop, because our decrement is also our condition expression, we must stick with i-- if we want to process the item at index 0.
Trivia
Some people like to draw a little arrow in the reverse for loop, and end with a wink:
for (var i = array.length; i --> 0 ;) {
Credits go to WYL for showing me the benefits and horrors of the reverse for loop.
Some C-style languages use foreach to loop through enumerations. In JavaScript this is done with the for..in loop structure:
var index,
value;
for (index in obj) {
value = obj[index];
}
There is a catch. for..in will loop through each of the object's enumerable members, and the members on its prototype. To avoid reading values that are inherited through the object's prototype, simply check if the property belongs to the object:
for (i in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
//do stuff
}
}
Additionally, ECMAScript 5 has added a forEach method to Array.prototype which can be used to enumerate over an array using a calback (the polyfill is in the docs so you can still use it for older browsers):
arr.forEach(function (val, index, theArray) {
//do stuff
});
It's important to note that Array.prototype.forEach doesn't break when the callback returns false. jQuery and Underscore.js provide their own variations on each to provide loops that can be short-circuited.
for...of | forEach | map
Using modern JavaScript syntax to iterate through arrays
const fruits = ['🍎', '🍋', '🍌' ]
👉🏽 for...of
for (const fruit of fruits) {
console.log(fruit) // '🍎', '🍋', '🍌'
}
👉🏽 forEach
fruits.forEach(fruit => {
console.log(fruit) // '🍎', '🍋', '🍌'
})
👉🏽 map
*Different from the two above, map() creates a new array and expects you to return something after each iteration.
fruits.map(fruit => fruit) // ['🍎', '🍋', '🍌' ]
🛑 Important: As map() is meant to return a value at each iteration, it is an ideal method for transforming elements in arrays:
fruits.map(fruit => 'cool ' + fruit) // ['cool 🍎', 'cool 🍋', 'cool 🍌' ]
On the other hand, for...of and forEach( ) don't need to return anything and that's why we typically use them to perform logic tasks that manipulate stuff outside.
So to speak, you're going to find if () statements, side effects, and logging activities in these two.
👌🏾 TIP: you can also have the index (as well as the whole array) in each iteration in your .map() or .forEach() functions.
Just pass additional arguments to them:
fruits.map((fruit, i) => i + ' ' + fruit)
// ['0 🍎', '1 🍋', '2 🍌' ]
fruits.forEach((f, i, arr) => {
console.log( f + ' ' + i + ' ' + arr )
})
// 🍎 0 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
// 🍋 1 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
// 🍌 2 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
If you want to loop over an array, use the standard three-part for loop.
for (var i = 0; i < myArray.length; i++) {
var arrayItem = myArray[i];
}
You can get some performance optimisations by caching myArray.length or iterating over it backwards.
If you don't mind emptying the array:
var x;
while(x = y.pop()){
alert(x); //do something
}
x will contain the last value of y and it will be removed from the array. You can also use shift() which will give and remove the first item from y.
A forEach implementation (see in jsFiddle):
function forEach(list,callback) {
var length = list.length;
for (var n = 0; n < length; n++) {
callback.call(list[n]);
}
}
var myArray = ['hello','world'];
forEach(
myArray,
function(){
alert(this); // do something
}
);
I know this is an old post, and there are so many great answers already. For a little more completeness I figured I'd throw in another one using AngularJS. Of course, this only applies if you're using Angular, obviously, nonetheless I'd like to put it anyway.
angular.forEach takes 2 arguments and an optional third argument. The first argument is the object (array) to iterate over, the second argument is the iterator function, and the optional third argument is the object context (basically referred to inside the loop as 'this'.
There are different ways to use the forEach loop of angular. The simplest and probably most used is
var temp = [1, 2, 3];
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
//item will be each element in the array
//do something
});
Another way that is useful for copying items from one array to another is
var temp = [1, 2, 3];
var temp2 = [];
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
this.push(item); //"this" refers to the array passed into the optional third parameter so, in this case, temp2.
}, temp2);
Though, you don't have to do that, you can simply do the following and it's equivalent to the previous example:
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
temp2.push(item);
});
Now there are pros and cons of using the angular.forEach function as opposed to the built in vanilla-flavored for loop.
Pros
Easy readability
Easy writability
If available, angular.forEach will use the ES5 forEach loop. Now, I will get to efficientcy in the cons section, as the forEach loops are much slower than the for loops. I mention this as a pro because it's nice to be consistent and standardized.
Consider the following 2 nested loops, which do exactly the same thing. Let's say that we have 2 arrays of objects and each object contains an array of results, each of which has a Value property that's a string (or whatever). And let's say we need to iterate over each of the results and if they're equal then perform some action:
angular.forEach(obj1.results, function(result1) {
angular.forEach(obj2.results, function(result2) {
if (result1.Value === result2.Value) {
//do something
}
});
});
//exact same with a for loop
for (var i = 0; i < obj1.results.length; i++) {
for (var j = 0; j < obj2.results.length; j++) {
if (obj1.results[i].Value === obj2.results[j].Value) {
//do something
}
}
}
Granted this is a very simple hypothetical example, but I've written triple embedded for loops using the second approach and it was very hard to read, and write for that matter.
Cons
Efficiency. angular.forEach, and the native forEach, for that matter, are both so much slower than the normal for loop....about 90% slower. So for large data sets, best to stick to the native for loop.
No break, continue, or return support. continue is actually supported by "accident", to continue in an angular.forEach you simple put a return; statement in the function like angular.forEach(array, function(item) { if (someConditionIsTrue) return; }); which will cause it to continue out of the function for that iteration. This is also due to the fact that the native forEach does not support break or continue either.
I'm sure there's various other pros and cons as well, and please feel free to add any that you see fit. I feel that, bottom line, if you need efficiency, stick with just the native for loop for your looping needs. But, if your datasets are smaller and a some efficiency is okay to give up in exchange for readability and writability, then by all means throw an angular.forEach in that bad boy.
As of ECMAScript 6:
list = [0, 1, 2, 3]
for (let obj of list) {
console.log(obj)
}
Where of avoids the oddities associated with in and makes it work like the for loop of any other language, and let binds i within the loop as opposed to within the function.
The braces ({}) can be omitted when there is only one command (e.g. in the example above).
Probably the for(i = 0; i < array.length; i++) loop is not the best choice. Why? If you have this:
var array = new Array();
array[1] = "Hello";
array[7] = "World";
array[11] = "!";
The method will call from array[0] to array[2]. First, this will first reference variables you don't even have, second you would not have the variables in the array, and third this will make the code bolder. Look here, it's what I use:
for(var i in array){
var el = array[i];
//If you want 'i' to be INT just put parseInt(i)
//Do something with el
}
And if you want it to be a function, you can do this:
function foreach(array, call){
for(var i in array){
call(array[i]);
}
}
If you want to break, a little more logic:
function foreach(array, call){
for(var i in array){
if(call(array[i]) == false){
break;
}
}
}
Example:
foreach(array, function(el){
if(el != "!"){
console.log(el);
} else {
console.log(el+"!!");
}
});
It returns:
//Hello
//World
//!!!
There are three implementations of foreach in jQuery as follows.
var a = [3,2];
$(a).each(function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 1
$.each(a, function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 2
$.each($(a), function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 3
An easy solution now would be to use the underscore.js library. It's providing many useful tools, such as each and will automatically delegate the job to the native forEach if available.
A CodePen example of how it works is:
var arr = ["elemA", "elemB", "elemC"];
_.each(arr, function(elem, index, ar)
{
...
});
See also
Documentation for native Array.prototype.forEach().
In for_each...in (MDN) it is explained that for each (variable in object) is deprecated as the part of ECMA-357 (EAX) standard.
for...of (MDN) describes the next way of iterating using for (variable of object) as the part of the Harmony (ECMAScript 6) proposal.
There isn't any for each loop in native JavaScript. You can either use libraries to get this functionality (I recommend Underscore.js), use a simple for in loop.
for (var instance in objects) {
...
}
However, note that there may be reasons to use an even simpler for loop (see Stack Overflow question Why is using “for…in” with array iteration such a bad idea?)
var instance;
for (var i=0; i < objects.length; i++) {
var instance = objects[i];
...
}
ECMAScript 5 (the version on JavaScript) to work with Arrays:
forEach - Iterates through every item in the array and do whatever you need with each item.
['C', 'D', 'E'].forEach(function(element, index) {
console.log(element + " is #" + (index+1) + " in the musical scale");
});
// Output
// C is the #1 in musical scale
// D is the #2 in musical scale
// E is the #3 in musical scale
In case, more interested on operation on array using some inbuilt feature.
map - It creates a new array with the result of the callback function. This method is good to be used when you need to format the elements of your array.
// Let's upper case the items in the array
['bob', 'joe', 'jen'].map(function(elem) {
return elem.toUpperCase();
});
// Output: ['BOB', 'JOE', 'JEN']
reduce - As the name says, it reduces the array to a single value by calling the given function passing in the current element and the result of the previous execution.
[1,2,3,4].reduce(function(previous, current) {
return previous + current;
});
// Output: 10
// 1st iteration: previous=1, current=2 => result=3
// 2nd iteration: previous=3, current=3 => result=6
// 3rd iteration: previous=6, current=4 => result=10
every - Returns true or false if all the elements in the array pass the test in the callback function.
// Check if everybody has 18 years old of more.
var ages = [30, 43, 18, 5];
ages.every(function(elem) {
return elem >= 18;
});
// Output: false
filter - Very similar to every except that filter returns an array with the elements that return true to the given function.
// Finding the even numbers
[1,2,3,4,5,6].filter(function(elem){
return (elem % 2 == 0)
});
// Output: [2,4,6]
There are a few ways to loop through an array in JavaScript, as below:
for - it's the most common one. Full block of code for looping
var languages = ["Java", "JavaScript", "C#", "Python"];
var i, len, text;
for (i = 0, len = languages.length, text = ""; i < len; i++) {
text += languages[i] + "<br>";
}
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
while - loop while a condition is through. It seems to be the fastest loop
var text = "";
var i = 0;
while (i < 10) {
text += i + ") something<br>";
i++;
}
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
do/while - also loop through a block of code while the condition is true, will run at least one time
var text = ""
var i = 0;
do {
text += i + ") something <br>";
i++;
}
while (i < 10);
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
Functional loops - forEach, map, filter, also reduce (they loop through the function, but they are used if you need to do something with your array, etc.
// For example, in this case we loop through the number and double them up using the map function
var numbers = [65, 44, 12, 4];
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = numbers.map(function(num){return num * 2});
<p id="example"></p>
For more information and examples about functional programming on arrays, look at the blog post Functional programming in JavaScript: map, filter and reduce.
This is an iterator for NON-sparse list where the index starts at 0, which is the typical scenario when dealing with document.getElementsByTagName or document.querySelectorAll)
function each( fn, data ) {
if(typeof fn == 'string')
eval('fn = function(data, i){' + fn + '}');
for(var i=0, L=this.length; i < L; i++)
fn.call( this[i], data, i );
return this;
}
Array.prototype.each = each;
Examples of usage:
Example #1
var arr = [];
[1, 2, 3].each( function(a){ a.push( this * this}, arr);
arr = [1, 4, 9]
Example #2
each.call(document.getElementsByTagName('p'), "this.className = data;",'blue');
Each p tag gets class="blue"
Example #3
each.call(document.getElementsByTagName('p'),
"if( i % 2 == 0) this.className = data;",
'red'
);
Every other p tag gets class="red">
Example #4
each.call(document.querySelectorAll('p.blue'),
function(newClass, i) {
if( i < 20 )
this.className = newClass;
}, 'green'
);
And finally the first 20 blue p tags are changed to green
Caution when using string as function: the function is created out-of-context and ought to be used only where you are certain of variable scoping. Otherwise, better to pass functions where scoping is more intuitive.
There's no inbuilt ability to break in forEach. To interrupt execution use the Array#some like below:
[1,2,3].some(function(number) {
return number === 1;
});
This works because some returns true as soon as any of the callbacks, executed in array order, returns true, short-circuiting the execution of the rest.
Original Answer
see Array prototype for some
I also would like to add this as a composition of a reverse loop and an answer above for someone that would like this syntax too.
var foo = [object,object,object];
for (var i = foo.length, item; item = foo[--i];) {
console.log(item);
}
Pros:
The benefit for this: You have the reference already in the first like that won't need to be declared later with another line. It is handy when looping trough the object array.
Cons:
This will break whenever the reference is false - falsey (undefined, etc.). It can be used as an advantage though. However, it would make it a little bit harder to read. And also depending on the browser it can be "not" optimized to work faster than the original one.
jQuery way using $.map:
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7];
var newData = $.map(data, function(element) {
if (element % 2 == 0) {
return element;
}
});
// newData = [2, 4, 6];
Use for...of where possible
async/await support
Skips non-numeric props
Immutable index
for...of
✅
✅
✅
forEach()
❌
✅
✅
for...in
✅
❌
✅
Regular for
✅
✅
❌
As one can see in the table above, for...of should be used wherever it fits. Since it supports async functions, skips non-numeric properties and prevents messing up the loop by accidentally modifying the loop index.
Syntax
const nums = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
for (const num of nums) {
/* Do something with num */
}
See for...of reference for more examples, link to specification and difference between for...of and for...in. Or maybe check this tutorial for some explanation on how they differ.
Using loops with ECMAScript 6 destructuring and the spread operator
Destructuring and using of the spread operator have proven quite useful for newcomers to ECMAScript 6 as being more human-readable/aesthetic, although some JavaScript veterans might consider it messy. Juniors or some other people might find it useful.
The following examples will use the for...of statement and the .forEach method.
Examples 6, 7, and 8 can be used with any functional loops like .map, .filter, .reduce, .sort, .every, .some. For more information about these methods, check out the Array Object.
Example 1: Normal for...of loop - no tricks here.
let arrSimple = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
for (let letter of arrSimple) {
console.log(letter);
}
Example 2: Split words to characters
let arrFruits = ['apple', 'orange', 'banana'];
for (let [firstLetter, ...restOfTheWord] of arrFruits) {
// Create a shallow copy using the spread operator
let [lastLetter] = [...restOfTheWord].reverse();
console.log(firstLetter, lastLetter, restOfTheWord);
}
Example 3: Looping with a key and value
// let arrSimple = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
// Instead of keeping an index in `i` as per example `for(let i = 0 ; i<arrSimple.length;i++)`
// this example will use a multi-dimensional array of the following format type:
// `arrWithIndex: [number, string][]`
let arrWithIndex = [
[0, 'a'],
[1, 'b'],
[2, 'c'],
];
// Same thing can be achieved using `.map` method
// let arrWithIndex = arrSimple.map((i, idx) => [idx, i]);
// Same thing can be achieved using `Object.entries`
// NOTE: `Object.entries` method doesn't work on Internet Explorer unless it's polyfilled
// let arrWithIndex = Object.entries(arrSimple);
for (let [key, value] of arrWithIndex) {
console.log(key, value);
}
Example 4: Get object properties inline
let arrWithObjects = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33
}
];
for (let { name, age: aliasForAge } of arrWithObjects) {
console.log(name, aliasForAge);
}
Example 5: Get deep object properties of what you need
let arrWithObjectsWithArr = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32,
tags: ['driver', 'chef', 'jogger']
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33,
tags: ['best chef', 'singer', 'dancer']
}
];
for (let { name, tags: [firstItemFromTags, ...restOfTags] } of arrWithObjectsWithArr) {
console.log(name, firstItemFromTags, restOfTags);
}
Example 6: Is Example 3 used with .forEach
let arrWithIndex = [
[0, 'a'],
[1, 'b'],
[2, 'c'],
];
// Not to be confused here, `forEachIndex` is the real index
// `mappedIndex` was created by "another user", so you can't really trust it
arrWithIndex.forEach(([mappedIndex, item], forEachIndex) => {
console.log(forEachIndex, mappedIndex, item);
});
Example 7: Is Example 4 used with .forEach
let arrWithObjects = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33
}
];
// NOTE: Destructuring objects while using shorthand functions
// are required to be surrounded by parentheses
arrWithObjects.forEach( ({ name, age: aliasForAge }) => {
console.log(name, aliasForAge)
});
Example 8: Is Example 5 used with .forEach
let arrWithObjectsWithArr = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32,
tags: ['driver', 'chef', 'jogger']
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33,
tags: ['best chef', 'singer', 'dancer']
}
];
arrWithObjectsWithArr.forEach(({
name,
tags: [firstItemFromTags, ...restOfTags]
}) => {
console.log(name, firstItemFromTags, restOfTags);
});
Summary:
When iterating over an array, we often want to accomplish one of the following goals:
We want to iterate over the array and create a new array:
Array.prototype.map
We want to iterate over the array and don't create a new array:
Array.prototype.forEach
for..of loop
In JavaScript, there are many ways of accomplishing both of these goals. However, some are more convenient than others. Below you can find some commonly used methods (the most convenient IMO) to accomplish array iteration in JavaScript.
Creating new array: Map
map() is a function located on Array.prototype which can transform every element of an array and then returns a new array. map() takes as an argument a callback function and works in the following manner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
let newArr = arr.map((element, index, array) => {
return element * 2;
})
console.log(arr);
console.log(newArr);
The callback which we have passed into map() as an argument gets executed for every element. Then an array gets returned which has the same length as the original array. In this new array element is transformed by the callback function passed in as an argument to map().
The distinct difference between map and another loop mechanism like forEach and a for..of loop is that map returns a new array and leaves the old array intact (except if you explicitly manipulate it with thinks like splice).
Also, note that the map function's callback provides the index number of the current iteration as a second argument. Furthermore, does the third argument provide the array on which map was called? Sometimes these properties can be very useful.
Loop using forEach
forEach is a function which is located on Array.prototype which takes a callback function as an argument. It then executes this callback function for every element in the array. In contrast to the map() function, the forEach function returns nothing (undefined). For example:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
arr.forEach((element, index, array) => {
console.log(element * 2);
if (index === 4) {
console.log(array)
}
// index, and oldArray are provided as 2nd and 3th argument by the callback
})
console.log(arr);
Just like the map function, the forEach callback provides the index number of the current iteration as a second argument. Also, does the third argument provide the array on which forEach was called?
Loop through elements using for..of
The for..of loop loops through every element of an array (or any other iterable object). It works in the following manner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
for(let element of arr) {
console.log(element * 2);
}
In the above example, element stands for an array element and arr is the array which we want to loop. Note that the name element is arbitrary, and we could have picked any other name like 'el' or something more declarative when this is applicable.
Don't confuse the for..in loop with the for..of loop. for..in will loop through all enumerable properties of the array whereas the for..of loop will only loop through the array elements. For example:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
arr.foo = 'foo';
for(let element of arr) {
console.log(element);
}
for(let element in arr) {
console.log(element);
}
Performance
Today (2019-12-18) I perform test on my macOS v10.13.6 (High Sierra), on Chrome v 79.0, Safari v13.0.4 and Firefox v71.0 (64 bit) - conclusions about optimisation (and micro-optimisation which usually is not worth to introduce it to code because the benefit is small, but code complexity grows).
It looks like the traditional for i (Aa) is a good choice to write fast code on all browsers.
The other solutions, like for-of (Ad), all in group C.... are usually 2 - 10 (and more) times slower than Aa, but for small arrays it is ok to use it - for the sake of increase code clarity.
The loops with array length cached in n (Ab, Bb, Be) are sometimes faster, sometimes not. Probably compilers automatically detect this situation and introduce caching. The speed differences between the cached and no-cached versions (Aa, Ba, Bd) are about ~1%, so it looks like introduce n is a micro-optimisation.
The i-- like solutions where the loop starts from the last array element (Ac, Bc) are usually ~30% slower than forward solutions - probably the reason is the way of CPU memory cache working - forward memory reading is more optimal for CPU caching). Is recommended to NOT USE such solutions.
Details
In tests we calculate the sum of array elements. I perform a test for small arrays (10 elements) and big arrays (1M elements) and divide them into three groups:
A - for tests
B - while tests
C - other/alternative methods
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
//let arr = Array.from(Array(1000000), (x, i) => i%10);
function Aa(a, s=0) {
for(let i=0; i<a.length; i++) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Aa=', s);
}
function Ab(a, s=0) {
let n = a.length;
for(let i=0; i<n; i++) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ab=', s);
}
function Ac(a, s=0) {
for(let i=a.length; i--;) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ac=', s);
}
function Ad(a, s=0) {
for(let x of a) {
s += x;
}
console.log('Ad=', s);
}
function Ae(a, s=0) {
for(let i in a) if (a.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ae=', s);
}
function Ba(a, s=0) {
let i = -1;
while(++i < a.length) {
s+= a[i];
}
console.log('Ba=', s);
}
function Bb(a, s=0) {
let i = -1;
let n = a.length;
while(++i < n) {
s+= a[i];
}
console.log('Bb=', s);
}
function Bc(a, s=0) {
let i = a.length;
while(i--) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Bc=', s);
}
function Bd(a, s=0) {
let i = 0;
do {
s+= a[i]
} while (++i < a.length);
console.log('Bd=', s);
}
function Be(a, s=0) {
let i = 0;
let n = a.length;
do {
s += a[i]
} while (++i < n);
console.log('Be=', s);
}
function Bf(a, s=0) {
const it = a.values();
let e;
while (!(e = it.next()).done) {
s+= e.value;
}
console.log('Bf=', s);
}
function Ca(a, s=0) {
a.map(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Ca=', s);
}
function Cb(a, s=0) {
a.forEach(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Cb=', s);
}
function Cc(a, s=0) {
a.every(x => (s += x, 1));
console.log('Cc=', s);
}
function Cd(a, s=0) {
a.filter(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Cd=',s);
}
function Ce(a, s=0) {
a.reduce((z, c) => { s+=c }, 0);
console.log('Ce=', s);
}
function Cf(a, s=0) {
a.reduceRight((z, c) => { s += c }, 0);
console.log('Cf=', s);
}
function Cg(a, s=0) {
a.some(x => { s += x } );
console.log('Cg=', s);
}
function Ch(a, s=0) {
Array.from(a, x=> s += x);
console.log('Cc=', s);
}
Aa(arr);
Ab(arr);
Ac(arr);
Ad(arr);
Ae(arr);
Ba(arr);
Bb(arr);
Bc(arr);
Bd(arr);
Be(arr);
Bf(arr);
Ca(arr);
Cb(arr);
Cc(arr);
Cd(arr);
Ce(arr);
Cf(arr);
Cg(arr);
Ch(arr);
<p style="color: red">This snippets only PRESENTS code used for benchmark - it not perform test itself</p>
Cross browser results
Results for all tested browsers
browsers**
Array with 10 elements
Results for Chrome. You can perform the test on your machine here.
Array with 1,000,000 elements
Results for Chrome. You can perform the test on your machine here
A way closest to your idea would be to use Array.forEach() which accepts a closure function which will be executed for each element of the array.
myArray.forEach(
(item) => {
// Do something
console.log(item);
}
);
Another viable way would be to use Array.map() which works in the same way, but it also takes all values that you return and returns them in a new array (essentially mapping each element to a new one), like this:
var myArray = [1, 2, 3];
myArray = myArray.map(
(item) => {
return item + 1;
}
);
console.log(myArray); // [2, 3, 4]
As per the new updated feature ECMAScript 6 (ES6) and ECMAScript 2015, you can use the following options with loops:
for loops
for(var i = 0; i < 5; i++){
console.log(i);
}
// Output: 0,1,2,3,4
for...in loops
let obj = {"a":1, "b":2}
for(let k in obj){
console.log(k)
}
// Output: a,b
Array.forEach()
let array = [1,2,3,4]
array.forEach((x) => {
console.log(x);
})
// Output: 1,2,3,4
for...of loops
let array = [1,2,3,4]
for(let x of array){
console.log(x);
}
// Output: 1,2,3,4
while loops
let x = 0
while(x < 5){
console.log(x)
x++
}
// Output: 1,2,3,4
do...while loops
let x = 0
do{
console.log(x)
x++
}while(x < 5)
// Output: 1,2,3,4
The lambda syntax doesn't usually work in Internet Explorer 10 or below.
I usually use the
[].forEach.call(arrayName,function(value,index){
console.log("value of the looped element" + value);
console.log("index of the looped element" + index);
});
If you are a jQuery fan and already have a jQuery file running, you should reverse the positions of the index and value parameters
$("#ul>li").each(function(**index, value**){
console.log("value of the looped element" + value);
console.log("index of the looped element" + index);
});
You can call forEach like this:
forEach will iterate over the array you provide and for each iteration it will have element which holds the value of that iteration. If you need index you can get the current index by passing the i as the second parameter in the callback function for forEach.
Foreach is basically a High Order Function, Which takes another function as its parameter.
let theArray= [1,3,2];
theArray.forEach((element) => {
// Use the element of the array
console.log(element)
}
Output:
1
3
2
You can also iterate over an array like this:
for (let i=0; i<theArray.length; i++) {
console.log(i); // i will have the value of each index
}
If you want to use forEach(), it will look like -
theArray.forEach ( element => {
console.log(element);
});
If you want to use for(), it will look like -
for(let idx = 0; idx < theArray.length; idx++){
let element = theArray[idx];
console.log(element);
}
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Is there a way to empty an array and if so possibly with .remove()?
For instance,
A = [1,2,3,4];
How can I empty that?
Ways to clear an existing array A:
Method 1
(this was my original answer to the question)
A = [];
This code will set the variable A to a new empty array. This is perfect if you don't have references to the original array A anywhere else because this actually creates a brand new (empty) array. You should be careful with this method because if you have referenced this array from another variable or property, the original array will remain unchanged. Only use this if you only reference the array by its original variable A.
This is also the fastest solution.
This code sample shows the issue you can encounter when using this method:
var arr1 = ['a','b','c','d','e','f'];
var arr2 = arr1; // Reference arr1 by another variable
arr1 = [];
console.log(arr2); // Output ['a','b','c','d','e','f']
Method 2 (as suggested by Matthew Crumley)
A.length = 0
This will clear the existing array by setting its length to 0. It also works when using "strict mode" in ECMAScript 5 because the length property of an array is a read/write property.
Method 3 (as suggested by Anthony)
A.splice(0,A.length)
Using .splice() will work perfectly, but since the .splice() function will return an array with all the removed items, it will actually return a copy of the original array. Benchmarks suggest that this has no effect on performance whatsoever.
Method 4 (as suggested by tanguy_k)
while(A.length > 0) {
A.pop();
}
This solution is not very succinct, and it is also the slowest solution, contrary to earlier benchmarks referenced in the original answer.
Performance
Of all the methods of clearing an existing array, methods 2 and 3 are very similar in performance and are a lot faster than method 4. See this benchmark.
As pointed out by Diadistis in their answer below, the original benchmarks that were used to determine the performance of the four methods described above were flawed. The original benchmark reused the cleared array so the second iteration was clearing an array that was already empty.
The following benchmark fixes this flaw: http://jsben.ch/#/hyj65. It clearly shows that methods #2 (length property) and #3 (splice) are the fastest (not counting method #1 which doesn't change the original array).
This has been a hot topic and the cause of a lot of controversy. There are actually many correct answers and because this answer has been marked as the accepted answer for a very long time, I will include all of the methods here.
If you need to keep the original array because you have other references to it that should be updated too, you can clear it without creating a new array by setting its length to zero:
A.length = 0;
Here the fastest working implementation while keeping the same array ("mutable"):
function clearArray(array) {
while (array.length > 0) {
array.pop();
}
}
FYI it cannot be simplified to while (array.pop()): the tests will fail.
FYI Map and Set define clear(), it would have seem logical to have clear() for Array too.
TypeScript version:
function clearArray<T>(array: T[]) {
while (array.length > 0) {
array.pop();
}
}
The corresponding tests:
describe('clearArray()', () => {
test('clear regular array', () => {
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
clearArray(array);
expect(array.length).toEqual(0);
expect(array[0]).toEqual(undefined);
expect(array[4]).toEqual(undefined);
});
test('clear array that contains undefined and null', () => {
const array = [1, undefined, 3, null, 5];
clearArray(array);
expect(array.length).toEqual(0);
expect(array[0]).toEqual(undefined);
expect(array[4]).toEqual(undefined);
});
});
Here the updated jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/array-destroy/32 http://jsperf.com/array-destroy/152
jsPerf offline. Similar benchmark: https://jsben.ch/hyj65
A more cross-browser friendly and more optimal solution will be to use the splice method to empty the content of the array A as below:
A.splice(0, A.length);
The answers that have no less that 2739 upvotes by now are misleading and incorrect.
The question is: "How do you empty your existing array?" E.g. for A = [1,2,3,4].
Saying "A = [] is the answer" is ignorant and absolutely incorrect. [] == [] is false.
This is because these two arrays are two separate, individual objects, with their own two identities, taking up their own space in the digital world, each on its own.
Let's say your mother asks you to empty the trash can.
You don't bring in a new one as if you've done what you've been asked for.
Instead, you empty the trash can.
You don't replace the filled one with a new empty can, and you don't take the label "A" from the filled can and stick it to the new one as in A = [1,2,3,4]; A = [];
Emptying an array object is the easiest thing ever:
A.length = 0;
This way, the can under "A" is not only empty, but also as clean as new!
Furthermore, you are not required to remove the trash by hand until the can is empty! You were asked to empty the existing one, completely, in one turn, not to pick up the trash until the can gets empty, as in:
while(A.length > 0) {
A.pop();
}
Nor, to put your left hand at the bottom of the trash, holding it with your right at the top to be able to pull its content out as in:
A.splice(0, A.length);
No, you were asked to empty it:
A.length = 0;
This is the only code that correctly empties the contents of a given JavaScript array.
Performance test:
http://jsperf.com/array-clear-methods/3
a = []; // 37% slower
a.length = 0; // 89% slower
a.splice(0, a.length) // 97% slower
while (a.length > 0) {
a.pop();
} // Fastest
You can add this to your JavaScript file to allow your arrays to be "cleared":
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
Then you can use it like this:
var list = [1, 2, 3];
list.clear();
Or if you want to be sure you don't destroy something:
if (!Array.prototype.clear) {
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
}
Lots of people think you shouldn't modify native objects (like Array), and I'm inclined to agree. Please use caution in deciding how to handle this.
You can easily create a function to do that for you, change the length or even add it to native Array as remove() function for reuse.
Imagine you have this array:
var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; //the array
OK, just simply run this:
arr.length = 0; //change the length
and the result is:
[] //result
easy way to empty an array...
Also using loop which is not necessary but just another way to do that:
/* could be arr.pop() or arr.splice(0)
don't need to return as main array get changed */
function remove(arr) {
while(arr.length) {
arr.shift();
}
}
There are also tricky way which you can think about, for example something like this:
arr.splice(0, arr.length); //[]
So if arr has 5 items, it will splice 5 items from 0, which means nothing will remain in the array.
Also other ways like simply reassign the array for example:
arr = []; //[]
If you look at the Array functions, there are many other ways to do this, but the most recommended one could be changing the length.
As I said in the first place, you can also prototype remove() as it's the answer to your question. you can simply choose one of the methods above and prototype it to Array object in JavaScript, something like:
Array.prototype.remove = Array.prototype.remove || function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
and you can simply call it like this to empty any array in your javascript application:
arr.remove(); //[]
If you are using
a = [];
Then you are assigning new array reference to a, if reference in a is already assigned to any other variable, then it will not empty that array too and hence garbage collector will not collect that memory.
For ex.
var a=[1,2,3];
var b=a;
a=[];
console.log(b);// It will print [1,2,3];
or
a.length = 0;
When we specify a.length, we are just resetting boundaries of the array and memory for rest array elements will be connected by garbage collector.
Instead of these two solutions are better.
a.splice(0,a.length)
and
while(a.length > 0) {
a.pop();
}
As per previous answer by kenshou.html, second method is faster.
There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding the while;pop/shift performance both in answers and comments. The while/pop solution has (as expected) the worst performance. What's actually happening is that setup runs only once for each sample that runs the snippet in a loop. eg:
var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
arr.push(Math.random());
}
for (var j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
while (arr.length > 0) {
arr.pop(); // this executes 100 times, not 100000
}
}
I have created a new test that works correctly :
http://jsperf.com/empty-javascript-array-redux
Warning: even in this version of the test you can't actually see the real difference because cloning the array takes up most of the test time. It still shows that splice is the fastest way to clear the array (not taking [] into consideration because while it is the fastest it's not actually clearing the existing array).
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.length = 0;
};
And call it: array.clear();
In case you are interested in the memory allocation, you may compare each approach using something like this jsfiddle in conjunction with chrome dev tools' timeline tab. You will want to use the trash bin icon at the bottom to force a garbage collection after 'clearing' the array. This should give you a more definite answer for the browser of your choice. A lot of answers here are old and I wouldn't rely on them but rather test as in #tanguy_k's answer above.
(for an intro to the aforementioned tab you can check out here)
Stackoverflow forces me to copy the jsfiddle so here it is:
<html>
<script>
var size = 1000*100
window.onload = function() {
document.getElementById("quantifier").value = size
}
function scaffold()
{
console.log("processing Scaffold...");
a = new Array
}
function start()
{
size = document.getElementById("quantifier").value
console.log("Starting... quantifier is " + size);
console.log("starting test")
for (i=0; i<size; i++){
a[i]="something"
}
console.log("done...")
}
function tearDown()
{
console.log("processing teardown");
a.length=0
}
</script>
<body>
<span style="color:green;">Quantifier:</span>
<input id="quantifier" style="color:green;" type="text"></input>
<button onclick="scaffold()">Scaffold</button>
<button onclick="start()">Start</button>
<button onclick="tearDown()">Clean</button>
<br/>
</body>
</html>
And you should take note that it may depend on the type of the array elements, as javascript manages strings differently than other primitive types, not to mention arrays of objects. The type may affect what happens.
Use a modified version of Jan's initial suggestion:
var originalLength = A.length;
for (var i = originalLength; i > 0; i--) {
A.pop();
}
Terser:
for (let i = A.length; i > 0;A.pop(),i--) {}
Or here's another take:
while(!A[Symbol.iterator]().next().done)A.shift()
A.splice(0);
I just did this on some code I am working on. It cleared the array.
If you use constants then you have no choice:
const numbers = [1, 2, 3]
You can not reasign:
numbers = []
You can only truncate:
numbers.length = 0
To Empty a Current memory location of an array use: 'myArray.length = 0' or 'myArray.pop() UN-till its length is 0'
length : You can set the length property to truncate an array at any time. When you extend an array by changing its length property, the number of actual elements increases.
pop() : The pop method removes the last element from an array and returns that returns the removed value.
shift() : The shift method removes the element at the zeroeth index and shifts the values at consecutive indexes down, then returns the removed value.
Example:
var arr = ['77'];
arr.length = 20;
console.log("Increasing : ", arr); // (20) ["77", empty × 19]
arr.length = 12;
console.log("Truncating : ", arr); // (12) ["77", empty × 11]
var mainArr = new Array();
mainArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
var refArr = mainArr;
console.log('Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
refArr.length = 3;
console.log('Length: ~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
mainArr.push('0');
console.log('Push to the End of Current Array Memory Location \n~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
mainArr.poptill_length(0);
console.log('Empty Array \n~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
Array.prototype.poptill_length = function (e) {
while (this.length) {
if( this.length == e ) break;
console.log('removed last element:', this.pop());
}
};
new Array() | [] Create an Array with new memory location by using Array constructor or array literal.
mainArr = []; // a new empty array is addressed to mainArr.
var arr = new Array('10'); // Array constructor
arr.unshift('1'); // add to the front
arr.push('15'); // add to the end
console.log("After Adding : ", arr); // ["1", "10", "15"]
arr.pop(); // remove from the end
arr.shift(); // remove from the front
console.log("After Removing : ", arr); // ["10"]
var arrLit = ['14', '17'];
console.log("array literal « ", indexedItem( arrLit ) ); // {0,14}{1,17}
function indexedItem( arr ) {
var indexedStr = "";
arr.forEach(function(item, index, array) {
indexedStr += "{"+index+","+item+"}";
console.log(item, index);
});
return indexedStr;
}
slice() : By using slice function we get an shallow copy of elements from the original array, with new memory address, So that any modification on cloneArr will not affect to an actual|original array.
var shallowCopy = mainArr.slice(); // this is how to make a copy
var cloneArr = mainArr.slice(0, 3);
console.log('Main', mainArr, '\tCloned', cloneArr);
cloneArr.length = 0; // Clears current memory location of an array.
console.log('Main', mainArr, '\tCloned', cloneArr);
I'm surprised no one has suggested this yet:
let xs = [1,2,3,4];
for (let i in xs)
delete xs[i];
This yields an array in quite a different state from the other solutions. In a sense, the array has been 'emptied':
xs
=> Array [ <4 empty slots> ]
[...xs]
=> Array [ undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined ]
xs.length
=> 4
xs[0]
=> ReferenceError: reference to undefined property xs[0]
You can produce an equivalent array with [,,,,] or Array(4)
How can I loop through all the entries in an array using JavaScript?
TL;DR
Your best bets are usually
a for-of loop (ES2015+ only; spec | MDN) - simple and async-friendly
for (const element of theArray) {
// ...use `element`...
}
forEach (ES5+ only; spec | MDN) (or its relatives some and such) - not async-friendly (but see details)
theArray.forEach(element => {
// ...use `element`...
});
a simple old-fashioned for loop - async-friendly
for (let index = 0; index < theArray.length; ++index) {
const element = theArray[index];
// ...use `element`...
}
(rarely) for-in with safeguards - async-friendly
for (const propertyName in theArray) {
if (/*...is an array element property (see below)...*/) {
const element = theArray[propertyName];
// ...use `element`...
}
}
Some quick "don't"s:
Don't use for-in unless you use it with safeguards or are at least aware of why it might bite you.
Don't use map if you're not using its return value.(There's sadly someone out there teaching map [spec / MDN] as though it were forEach — but as I write on my blog, that's not what it's for. If you aren't using the array it creates, don't use map.)
Don't use forEach if the callback does asynchronous work and you want the forEach to wait until that work is done (because it won't).
But there's lots more to explore, read on...
JavaScript has powerful semantics for looping through arrays and array-like objects. I've split the answer into two parts: Options for genuine arrays, and options for things that are just array-like, such as the arguments object, other iterable objects (ES2015+), DOM collections, and so on.
Okay, let's look at our options:
For Actual Arrays
You have five options (two supported basically forever, another added by ECMAScript 5 ["ES5"], and two more added in ECMAScript 2015 ("ES2015", aka "ES6"):
Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
Use forEach and related (ES5+)
Use a simple for loop
Use for-in correctly
Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
(You can see those old specs here: ES5, ES2015, but both have been superceded; the current editor's draft is always here.)
Details:
1. Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
ES2015 added iterators and iterables to JavaScript. Arrays are iterable (so are strings, Maps, and Sets, as well as DOM collections and lists, as you'll see later). Iterable objects provide iterators for their values. The new for-of statement loops through the values returned by an iterator:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (const element of a) { // You can use `let` instead of `const` if you like
console.log(element);
}
// a
// b
// c
It doesn't get simpler than that! Under the covers, that gets an iterator from the array and loops through the values the iterator returns. The iterator provided by arrays provides the values of the array elements, in order beginning to end.
Notice how element is scoped to each loop iteration; trying to use element after the end of the loop would fail because it doesn't exist outside the loop body.
In theory, a for-of loop involves several function calls (one to get the iterator, then one to get each value from it). Even when that's true, it's nothing to worry about, function calls are very cheap in modern JavaScript engines (it bothered me for forEach [below] until I looked into it; details). But additionally, JavaScript engines optimize those calls away (in performance-critical code) when dealing with native iterators for things like arrays.
for-of is entirely async-friendly. If you need the work in a loop body to be done in series (not in parallel), an await in the loop body will wait for the promise to settle before continuing. Here's a silly example:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (const message of messages) {
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
Note how the words appear with a delay before each one.
It's a matter of coding style, but for-of is the first thing I reach for when looping through anything iterable.
2. Use forEach and related
In any even vaguely-modern environment (so, not IE8) where you have access to the Array features added by ES5, you can use forEach (spec | MDN) if you're only dealing with synchronous code (or you don't need to wait for an asynchronous process to finish during the loop):
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
a.forEach((element) => {
console.log(element);
});
forEach accepts a callback function and, optionally, a value to use as this when calling that callback (not used above). The callback is called for each element in the array, in order, skipping non-existent elements in sparse arrays. Although I only used one parameter above, the callback is called with three arguments: The element for that iteration, the index of that element, and a reference to the array you're iterating over (in case your function doesn't already have it handy).
Like for-of, forEach has the advantage that you don't have to declare indexing and value variables in the containing scope; in this case, they're supplied as arguments to the iteration function, and so nicely scoped to just that iteration.
Unlike for-of, forEach has the disadvantage that it doesn't understand async functions and await. If you use an async function as the callback, forEach does not wait for that function's promise to settle before continuing. Here's the async example from for-of using forEach instead — notice how there's an initial delay, but then all the text appears right away instead of waiting:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
// INCORRECT, doesn't wait before continuing,
// doesn't handle promise rejections
messages.forEach(async message => {
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
});
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
forEach is the "loop through them all" function, but ES5 defined several other useful "work your way through the array and do things" functions, including:
every (spec | MDN) - stops looping the first time the callback returns a falsy value
some (spec | MDN) - stops looping the first time the callback returns a truthy value
filter (spec | MDN) - creates a new array including elements where the callback returns a truthy value, omitting the ones where it doesn't
map (spec | MDN) - creates a new array from the values returned by the callback
reduce (spec | MDN) - builds up a value by repeatedly calling the callback, passing in previous values; see the spec for the details
reduceRight (spec | MDN) - like reduce, but works in descending rather than ascending order
As with forEach, if you use an async function as your callback, none of those waits for the function's promise to settle. That means:
Using an async function callback is never appropriate with every, some, and filter since they will treat the returned promise as though it were a truthy value; they don't wait for the promise to settle and then use the fulfillment value.
Using an async function callback is often appropriate with map, if the goal is to turn an array of something into an array of promises, perhaps for passing to one of the promise combinator functions (Promise.all, Promise.race, promise.allSettled, or Promise.any).
Using an async function callback is rarely appropriate with reduce or reduceRight, because (again) the callback will always return a promise. But there is an idiom of building a chain of promises from an array that uses reduce (const promise = array.reduce((p, element) => p.then(/*...something using `element`...*/));), but usually in those cases a for-of or for loop in an async function will be clearer and easier to debug.
3. Use a simple for loop
Sometimes the old ways are the best:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = 0; index < a.length; ++index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
If the length of the array won't change during the loop, and it's in highly performance-sensitive code, a slightly more complicated version grabbing the length up front might be a tiny bit faster:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = 0, len = a.length; index < len; ++index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
And/or counting backward:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
for (let index = a.length - 1; index >= 0; --index) {
const element = a[index];
console.log(element);
}
But with modern JavaScript engines, it's rare you need to eke out that last bit of juice.
Before ES2015, the loop variable had to exist in the containing scope, because var only has function-level scope, not block-level scope. But as you saw in the examples above, you can use let within the for to scope the variables to just the loop. And when you do that, the index variable is recreated for each loop iteration, meaning closures created in the loop body keep a reference to the index for that specific iteration, which solves the old "closures in loops" problem:
// (The `NodeList` from `querySelectorAll` is array-like)
const divs = document.querySelectorAll("div");
for (let index = 0; index < divs.length; ++index) {
divs[index].addEventListener('click', e => {
console.log("Index is: " + index);
});
}
<div>zero</div>
<div>one</div>
<div>two</div>
<div>three</div>
<div>four</div>
In the above, you get "Index is: 0" if you click the first and "Index is: 4" if you click the last. This does not work if you use var instead of let (you'd always see "Index is: 5").
Like for-of, for loops work well in async functions. Here's the earlier example using a for loop:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (let i = 0; i < messages.length; ++i) {
const message = messages[i];
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
4. Use for-in correctly
for-in isn't for looping through arrays, it's for looping through the names of an object's properties. It does often seem to work for looping through arrays as a by-product of the fact that arrays are objects, but it doesn't just loop through the array indexes, it loops through all enumerable properties of the object (including inherited ones). (It also used to be that the order wasn't specified; it is now [details in this other answer], but even though the order is specified now, the rules are complex, there are exceptions, and relying on the order is not best practice.)
The only real use cases for for-in on an array are:
It's a sparse array with massive gaps in it, or
You're using non-element properties on the array object and you want to include them in the loop
Looking only at that first example: You can use for-in to visit those sparse array elements if you use appropriate safeguards:
// `a` is a sparse array
const a = [];
a[0] = "a";
a[10] = "b";
a[10000] = "c";
for (const name in a) {
if (Object.hasOwn(a, name) && // These checks are
/^0$|^[1-9]\d*$/.test(name) && // explained
name <= 4294967294 // below
) {
const element = a[name];
console.log(a[name]);
}
}
Note the three checks:
That the object has its own property by that name (not one it inherits from its prototype; this check is also often written as a.hasOwnProperty(name) but ES2022 adds Object.hasOwn which can be more reliable), and
That the name is all decimal digits (e.g., normal string form, not scientific notation), and
That the name's value when coerced to a number is <= 2^32 - 2 (which is 4,294,967,294). Where does that number come from? It's part of the definition of an array index in the specification. Other numbers (non-integers, negative numbers, numbers greater than 2^32 - 2) are not array indexes. The reason it's 2^32 - 2 is that that makes the greatest index value one lower than 2^32 - 1, which is the maximum value an array's length can have. (E.g., an array's length fits in a 32-bit unsigned integer.)
...although with that said, most code only does the hasOwnProperty check.
You wouldn't do that in inline code, of course. You'd write a utility function. Perhaps:
// Utility function for antiquated environments without `forEach`
const hasOwn = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call.bind(Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty);
const rexNum = /^0$|^[1-9]\d*$/;
function sparseEach(array, callback, thisArg) {
for (const name in array) {
const index = +name;
if (hasOwn(a, name) &&
rexNum.test(name) &&
index <= 4294967294
) {
callback.call(thisArg, array[name], index, array);
}
}
}
const a = [];
a[5] = "five";
a[10] = "ten";
a[100000] = "one hundred thousand";
a.b = "bee";
sparseEach(a, (value, index) => {
console.log("Value at " + index + " is " + value);
});
Like for, for-in works well in asynchronous functions if the work within it needs to be done in series.
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
for (const name in messages) {
if (messages.hasOwnProperty(name)) { // Almost always this is the only check people do
const message = messages[name];
await delay(400);
console.log(message);
}
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
5. Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
for-of uses an iterator implicitly, doing all the scut work for you. Sometimes, you might want to use an iterator explicitly. It looks like this:
const a = ["a", "b", "c"];
const it = a.values(); // Or `const it = a[Symbol.iterator]();` if you like
let entry;
while (!(entry = it.next()).done) {
const element = entry.value;
console.log(element);
}
An iterator is an object matching the Iterator definition in the specification. Its next method returns a new result object each time you call it. The result object has a property, done, telling us whether it's done, and a property value with the value for that iteration. (done is optional if it would be false, value is optional if it would be undefined.)
What you get for value varies depending on the iterator. On arrays, the default iterator provides the value of each array element ("a", "b", and "c" in the example earlier). Arrays also have three other methods that return iterators:
values(): This is an alias for the [Symbol.iterator] method that returns the default iterator.
keys(): Returns an iterator that provides each key (index) in the array. In the example above, it would provide "0", then "1", then "2" (yes, as strings).
entries(): Returns an iterator that provides [key, value] arrays.
Since iterator objects don't advance until you call next, they work well in async function loops. Here's the earlier for-of example using the iterator explicitly:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
async function showSlowly(messages) {
const it = messages.values()
while (!(entry = it.next()).done) {
await delay(400);
const element = entry.value;
console.log(element);
}
}
showSlowly([
"So", "long", "and", "thanks", "for", "all", "the", "fish!"
]);
// `.catch` omitted because we know it never rejects
For Array-Like Objects
Aside from true arrays, there are also array-like objects that have a length property and properties with all-digits names: NodeList instances, HTMLCollection instances, the arguments object, etc. How do we loop through their contents?
Use most of the options above
At least some, and possibly most or even all, of the array approaches above apply equally well to array-like objects:
Use for-of (use an iterator implicitly) (ES2015+)
for-of uses the iterator provided by the object (if any). That includes host-provided objects (like DOM collections and lists). For instance, HTMLCollection instances from getElementsByXYZ methods and NodeLists instances from querySelectorAll both support iteration. (This is defined quite subtly by the HTML and DOM specifications. Basically, any object with length and indexed access is automatically iterable. It doesn't have to be marked iterable; that is used only for collections that, in addition to being iterable, support forEach, values, keys, and entries methods. NodeList does; HTMLCollection doesn't, but both are iterable.)
Here's an example of looping through div elements:
const divs = document.querySelectorAll("div");
for (const div of divs) {
div.textContent = Math.random();
}
<div>zero</div>
<div>one</div>
<div>two</div>
<div>three</div>
<div>four</div>
Use forEach and related (ES5+)
The various functions on Array.prototype are "intentionally generic" and can be used on array-like objects via Function#call (spec | MDN) or Function#apply (spec | MDN). (If you have to deal with IE8 or earlier [ouch], see the "Caveat for host-provided objects" at the end of this answer, but it's not an issue with vaguely-modern browsers.)
Suppose you wanted to use forEach on a Node's childNodes collection (which, being an HTMLCollection, doesn't have forEach natively). You'd do this:
Array.prototype.forEach.call(node.childNodes, (child) => {
// Do something with `child`
});
(Note, though, that you could just use for-of on node.childNodes.)
If you're going to do that a lot, you might want to grab a copy of the function reference into a variable for reuse, e.g.:
// (This is all presumably in a module or some scoping function)
const forEach = Array.prototype.forEach.call.bind(Array.prototype.forEach);
// Then later...
forEach(node.childNodes, (child) => {
// Do something with `child`
});
Use a simple for loop
Perhaps obviously, a simple for loop works for array-like objects.
Use an iterator explicitly (ES2015+)
See #1.
You may be able to get away with for-in (with safeguards), but with all of these more appropriate options, there's no reason to try.
Create a true array
Other times, you may want to convert an array-like object into a true array. Doing that is surprisingly easy:
Use Array.from
Array.from (spec) | (MDN) (ES2015+, but easily polyfilled) creates an array from an array-like object, optionally passing the entries through a mapping function first. So:
const divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll("div"));
...takes the NodeList from querySelectorAll and makes an array from it.
The mapping function is handy if you were going to map the contents in some way. For instance, if you wanted to get an array of the tag names of the elements with a given class:
// Typical use (with an arrow function):
const divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".some-class"), element => element.tagName);
// Traditional function (since `Array.from` can be polyfilled):
var divs = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".some-class"), function(element) {
return element.tagName;
});
Use spread syntax (...)
It's also possible to use ES2015's spread syntax. Like for-of, this uses the iterator provided by the object (see #1 in the previous section):
const trueArray = [...iterableObject];
So for instance, if we want to convert a NodeList into a true array, with spread syntax this becomes quite succinct:
const divs = [...document.querySelectorAll("div")];
Use the slice method of arrays
We can use the slice method of arrays, which like the other methods mentioned above is "intentionally generic" and so can be used with array-like objects, like this:
const trueArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arrayLikeObject);
So for instance, if we want to convert a NodeList into a true array, we could do this:
const divs = Array.prototype.slice.call(document.querySelectorAll("div"));
(If you still have to handle IE8 [ouch], will fail; IE8 didn't let you use host-provided objects as this like that.)
Caveat for host-provided objects
If you use Array.prototype functions with host-provided array-like objects (for example, DOM collections and such provided by the browser rather than the JavaScript engine), obsolete browsers like IE8 didn't necessarily handle that way, so if you have to support them, be sure to test in your target environments. But it's not an issue with vaguely-modern browsers. (For non-browser environments, naturally it'll depend on the environment.)
Note: This answer is hopelessly out-of-date. For a more modern approach, look at the methods available on an array. Methods of interest might be:
forEach
map
filter
zip
reduce
every
some
The standard way to iterate an array in JavaScript is a vanilla for-loop:
var length = arr.length,
element = null;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
element = arr[i];
// Do something with element
}
Note, however, that this approach is only good if you have a dense array, and each index is occupied by an element. If the array is sparse, then you can run into performance problems with this approach, since you will iterate over a lot of indices that do not really exist in the array. In this case, a for .. in-loop might be a better idea. However, you must use the appropriate safeguards to ensure that only the desired properties of the array (that is, the array elements) are acted upon, since the for..in-loop will also be enumerated in legacy browsers, or if the additional properties are defined as enumerable.
In ECMAScript 5 there will be a forEach method on the array prototype, but it is not supported in legacy browsers. So to be able to use it consistently you must either have an environment that supports it (for example, Node.js for server side JavaScript), or use a "Polyfill". The Polyfill for this functionality is, however, trivial and since it makes the code easier to read, it is a good polyfill to include.
If you’re using the jQuery library, you can use jQuery.each:
$.each(yourArray, function(index, value) {
// do your stuff here
});
EDIT :
As per question, user want code in javascript instead of jquery so the edit is
var length = yourArray.length;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
// Do something with yourArray[i].
}
Loop backwards
I think the reverse for loop deserves a mention here:
for (var i = array.length; i--; ) {
// process array[i]
}
Advantages:
You do not need to declare a temporary len variable, or compare against array.length on each iteration, either of which might be a minute optimisation.
Removing siblings from the DOM in reverse order is usually more efficient. (The browser needs to do less shifting of elements in its internal arrays.)
If you modify the array while looping, at or after index i (for example you remove or insert an item at array[i]), then a forward loop would skip the item that shifted left into position i, or re-process the ith item that was shifted right. In a traditional for loop, you could update i to point to the next item that needs processing - 1, but simply reversing the direction of iteration is often a simpler and more elegant solution.
Similarly, when modifying or removing nested DOM elements, processing in reverse can circumvent errors. For example, consider modifying the innerHTML of a parent node before handling its children. By the time the child node is reached it will be detached from the DOM, having been replaced by a newly created child when the parent's innerHTML was written.
It is shorter to type, and read, than some of the other options available. Although it loses to forEach() and to ES6's for ... of.
Disadvantages:
It processes the items in reverse order. If you were building a new array from the results, or printing things on screen, naturally the output will be reversed with respect to the original order.
Repeatedly inserting siblings into the DOM as a first child in order to retain their order is less efficient. (The browser would keep having to shift things right.) To create DOM nodes efficiently and in order, just loop forwards and append as normal (and also use a "document fragment").
The reverse loop is confusing to junior developers. (You may consider that an advantage, depending on your outlook.)
Should I always use it?
Some developers use the reverse for loop by default, unless there is a good reason to loop forwards.
Although the performance gains are usually insignificant, it sort of screams:
"Just do this to every item in the list, I don't care about the order!"
However in practice that is not actually a reliable indication of intent, since it is indistinguishable from those occasions when you do care about the order, and really do need to loop in reverse. So in fact another construct would be needed to accurately express the "don't care" intent, something currently unavailable in most languages, including ECMAScript, but which could be called, for example, forEachUnordered().
If order doesn't matter, and efficiency is a concern (in the innermost loop of a game or animation engine), then it may be acceptable to use the reverse for loop as your go-to pattern. Just remember that seeing a reverse for loop in existing code does not necessarily mean that the order irrelevant!
It was better to use forEach()
In general for higher level code where clarity and safety are greater concerns, I previously recommended using Array::forEach as your default pattern for looping (although these days I prefer to use for..of). Reasons to prefer forEach over a reverse loop are:
It is clearer to read.
It indicates that i is not going to be shifted within the block (which is always a possible surprise hiding in long for and while loops).
It gives you a free scope for closures.
It reduces leakage of local variables and accidental collision with (and mutation of) outer variables.
Then when you do see the reverse for loop in your code, that is a hint that it is reversed for a good reason (perhaps one of the reasons described above). And seeing a traditional forward for loop may indicate that shifting can take place.
(If the discussion of intent makes no sense to you, then you and your code may benefit from watching Crockford's lecture on Programming Style & Your Brain.)
It is now even better to use for..of!
There is a debate about whether for..of or forEach() are preferable:
For maximum browser support, for..of requires a polyfill for iterators, making your app slightly slower to execute and slightly larger to download.
For that reason (and to encourage use of map and filter), some front-end style guides ban for..of completely!
But the above concerns is not applicable to Node.js applications, where for..of is now well supported.
And furthermore await does not work inside forEach(). Using for..of is the clearest pattern in this case.
Personally, I tend to use whatever looks easiest to read, unless performance or minification has become a major concern. So these days I prefer to use for..of instead of forEach(), but I will always use map or filter or find or some when applicable.
(For the sake of my colleagues, I rarely use reduce.)
How does it work?
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { ... } // Forwards
for (var i = array.length; i--; ) { ... } // Reverse
You will notice that i-- is the middle clause (where we usually see a comparison) and the last clause is empty (where we usually see i++). That means that i-- is also used as the condition for continuation. Crucially, it is executed and checked before each iteration.
How can it start at array.length without exploding?
Because i-- runs before each iteration, on the first iteration we will actually be accessing the item at array.length - 1 which avoids any issues with Array-out-of-bounds undefined items.
Why doesn't it stop iterating before index 0?
The loop will stop iterating when the condition i-- evaluates to a falsey value (when it yields 0).
The trick is that unlike --i, the trailing i-- operator decrements i but yields the value before the decrement. Your console can demonstrate this:
> var i = 5; [i, i--, i];
[5, 5, 4]
So on the final iteration, i was previously 1 and the i-- expression changes it to 0 but actually yields 1 (truthy), and so the condition passes. On the next iteration i-- changes i to -1 but yields 0 (falsey), causing execution to immediately drop out of the bottom of the loop.
In the traditional forwards for loop, i++ and ++i are interchangeable (as Douglas Crockford points out). However in the reverse for loop, because our decrement is also our condition expression, we must stick with i-- if we want to process the item at index 0.
Trivia
Some people like to draw a little arrow in the reverse for loop, and end with a wink:
for (var i = array.length; i --> 0 ;) {
Credits go to WYL for showing me the benefits and horrors of the reverse for loop.
Some C-style languages use foreach to loop through enumerations. In JavaScript this is done with the for..in loop structure:
var index,
value;
for (index in obj) {
value = obj[index];
}
There is a catch. for..in will loop through each of the object's enumerable members, and the members on its prototype. To avoid reading values that are inherited through the object's prototype, simply check if the property belongs to the object:
for (i in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
//do stuff
}
}
Additionally, ECMAScript 5 has added a forEach method to Array.prototype which can be used to enumerate over an array using a calback (the polyfill is in the docs so you can still use it for older browsers):
arr.forEach(function (val, index, theArray) {
//do stuff
});
It's important to note that Array.prototype.forEach doesn't break when the callback returns false. jQuery and Underscore.js provide their own variations on each to provide loops that can be short-circuited.
for...of | forEach | map
Using modern JavaScript syntax to iterate through arrays
const fruits = ['🍎', '🍋', '🍌' ]
👉🏽 for...of
for (const fruit of fruits) {
console.log(fruit) // '🍎', '🍋', '🍌'
}
👉🏽 forEach
fruits.forEach(fruit => {
console.log(fruit) // '🍎', '🍋', '🍌'
})
👉🏽 map
*Different from the two above, map() creates a new array and expects you to return something after each iteration.
fruits.map(fruit => fruit) // ['🍎', '🍋', '🍌' ]
🛑 Important: As map() is meant to return a value at each iteration, it is an ideal method for transforming elements in arrays:
fruits.map(fruit => 'cool ' + fruit) // ['cool 🍎', 'cool 🍋', 'cool 🍌' ]
On the other hand, for...of and forEach( ) don't need to return anything and that's why we typically use them to perform logic tasks that manipulate stuff outside.
So to speak, you're going to find if () statements, side effects, and logging activities in these two.
👌🏾 TIP: you can also have the index (as well as the whole array) in each iteration in your .map() or .forEach() functions.
Just pass additional arguments to them:
fruits.map((fruit, i) => i + ' ' + fruit)
// ['0 🍎', '1 🍋', '2 🍌' ]
fruits.forEach((f, i, arr) => {
console.log( f + ' ' + i + ' ' + arr )
})
// 🍎 0 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
// 🍋 1 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
// 🍌 2 🍎, 🍋, 🍌,
If you want to loop over an array, use the standard three-part for loop.
for (var i = 0; i < myArray.length; i++) {
var arrayItem = myArray[i];
}
You can get some performance optimisations by caching myArray.length or iterating over it backwards.
If you don't mind emptying the array:
var x;
while(x = y.pop()){
alert(x); //do something
}
x will contain the last value of y and it will be removed from the array. You can also use shift() which will give and remove the first item from y.
A forEach implementation (see in jsFiddle):
function forEach(list,callback) {
var length = list.length;
for (var n = 0; n < length; n++) {
callback.call(list[n]);
}
}
var myArray = ['hello','world'];
forEach(
myArray,
function(){
alert(this); // do something
}
);
I know this is an old post, and there are so many great answers already. For a little more completeness I figured I'd throw in another one using AngularJS. Of course, this only applies if you're using Angular, obviously, nonetheless I'd like to put it anyway.
angular.forEach takes 2 arguments and an optional third argument. The first argument is the object (array) to iterate over, the second argument is the iterator function, and the optional third argument is the object context (basically referred to inside the loop as 'this'.
There are different ways to use the forEach loop of angular. The simplest and probably most used is
var temp = [1, 2, 3];
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
//item will be each element in the array
//do something
});
Another way that is useful for copying items from one array to another is
var temp = [1, 2, 3];
var temp2 = [];
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
this.push(item); //"this" refers to the array passed into the optional third parameter so, in this case, temp2.
}, temp2);
Though, you don't have to do that, you can simply do the following and it's equivalent to the previous example:
angular.forEach(temp, function(item) {
temp2.push(item);
});
Now there are pros and cons of using the angular.forEach function as opposed to the built in vanilla-flavored for loop.
Pros
Easy readability
Easy writability
If available, angular.forEach will use the ES5 forEach loop. Now, I will get to efficientcy in the cons section, as the forEach loops are much slower than the for loops. I mention this as a pro because it's nice to be consistent and standardized.
Consider the following 2 nested loops, which do exactly the same thing. Let's say that we have 2 arrays of objects and each object contains an array of results, each of which has a Value property that's a string (or whatever). And let's say we need to iterate over each of the results and if they're equal then perform some action:
angular.forEach(obj1.results, function(result1) {
angular.forEach(obj2.results, function(result2) {
if (result1.Value === result2.Value) {
//do something
}
});
});
//exact same with a for loop
for (var i = 0; i < obj1.results.length; i++) {
for (var j = 0; j < obj2.results.length; j++) {
if (obj1.results[i].Value === obj2.results[j].Value) {
//do something
}
}
}
Granted this is a very simple hypothetical example, but I've written triple embedded for loops using the second approach and it was very hard to read, and write for that matter.
Cons
Efficiency. angular.forEach, and the native forEach, for that matter, are both so much slower than the normal for loop....about 90% slower. So for large data sets, best to stick to the native for loop.
No break, continue, or return support. continue is actually supported by "accident", to continue in an angular.forEach you simple put a return; statement in the function like angular.forEach(array, function(item) { if (someConditionIsTrue) return; }); which will cause it to continue out of the function for that iteration. This is also due to the fact that the native forEach does not support break or continue either.
I'm sure there's various other pros and cons as well, and please feel free to add any that you see fit. I feel that, bottom line, if you need efficiency, stick with just the native for loop for your looping needs. But, if your datasets are smaller and a some efficiency is okay to give up in exchange for readability and writability, then by all means throw an angular.forEach in that bad boy.
As of ECMAScript 6:
list = [0, 1, 2, 3]
for (let obj of list) {
console.log(obj)
}
Where of avoids the oddities associated with in and makes it work like the for loop of any other language, and let binds i within the loop as opposed to within the function.
The braces ({}) can be omitted when there is only one command (e.g. in the example above).
Probably the for(i = 0; i < array.length; i++) loop is not the best choice. Why? If you have this:
var array = new Array();
array[1] = "Hello";
array[7] = "World";
array[11] = "!";
The method will call from array[0] to array[2]. First, this will first reference variables you don't even have, second you would not have the variables in the array, and third this will make the code bolder. Look here, it's what I use:
for(var i in array){
var el = array[i];
//If you want 'i' to be INT just put parseInt(i)
//Do something with el
}
And if you want it to be a function, you can do this:
function foreach(array, call){
for(var i in array){
call(array[i]);
}
}
If you want to break, a little more logic:
function foreach(array, call){
for(var i in array){
if(call(array[i]) == false){
break;
}
}
}
Example:
foreach(array, function(el){
if(el != "!"){
console.log(el);
} else {
console.log(el+"!!");
}
});
It returns:
//Hello
//World
//!!!
There are three implementations of foreach in jQuery as follows.
var a = [3,2];
$(a).each(function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 1
$.each(a, function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 2
$.each($(a), function(){console.log(this.valueOf())}); //Method 3
An easy solution now would be to use the underscore.js library. It's providing many useful tools, such as each and will automatically delegate the job to the native forEach if available.
A CodePen example of how it works is:
var arr = ["elemA", "elemB", "elemC"];
_.each(arr, function(elem, index, ar)
{
...
});
See also
Documentation for native Array.prototype.forEach().
In for_each...in (MDN) it is explained that for each (variable in object) is deprecated as the part of ECMA-357 (EAX) standard.
for...of (MDN) describes the next way of iterating using for (variable of object) as the part of the Harmony (ECMAScript 6) proposal.
There isn't any for each loop in native JavaScript. You can either use libraries to get this functionality (I recommend Underscore.js), use a simple for in loop.
for (var instance in objects) {
...
}
However, note that there may be reasons to use an even simpler for loop (see Stack Overflow question Why is using “for…in” with array iteration such a bad idea?)
var instance;
for (var i=0; i < objects.length; i++) {
var instance = objects[i];
...
}
ECMAScript 5 (the version on JavaScript) to work with Arrays:
forEach - Iterates through every item in the array and do whatever you need with each item.
['C', 'D', 'E'].forEach(function(element, index) {
console.log(element + " is #" + (index+1) + " in the musical scale");
});
// Output
// C is the #1 in musical scale
// D is the #2 in musical scale
// E is the #3 in musical scale
In case, more interested on operation on array using some inbuilt feature.
map - It creates a new array with the result of the callback function. This method is good to be used when you need to format the elements of your array.
// Let's upper case the items in the array
['bob', 'joe', 'jen'].map(function(elem) {
return elem.toUpperCase();
});
// Output: ['BOB', 'JOE', 'JEN']
reduce - As the name says, it reduces the array to a single value by calling the given function passing in the current element and the result of the previous execution.
[1,2,3,4].reduce(function(previous, current) {
return previous + current;
});
// Output: 10
// 1st iteration: previous=1, current=2 => result=3
// 2nd iteration: previous=3, current=3 => result=6
// 3rd iteration: previous=6, current=4 => result=10
every - Returns true or false if all the elements in the array pass the test in the callback function.
// Check if everybody has 18 years old of more.
var ages = [30, 43, 18, 5];
ages.every(function(elem) {
return elem >= 18;
});
// Output: false
filter - Very similar to every except that filter returns an array with the elements that return true to the given function.
// Finding the even numbers
[1,2,3,4,5,6].filter(function(elem){
return (elem % 2 == 0)
});
// Output: [2,4,6]
There are a few ways to loop through an array in JavaScript, as below:
for - it's the most common one. Full block of code for looping
var languages = ["Java", "JavaScript", "C#", "Python"];
var i, len, text;
for (i = 0, len = languages.length, text = ""; i < len; i++) {
text += languages[i] + "<br>";
}
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
while - loop while a condition is through. It seems to be the fastest loop
var text = "";
var i = 0;
while (i < 10) {
text += i + ") something<br>";
i++;
}
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
do/while - also loop through a block of code while the condition is true, will run at least one time
var text = ""
var i = 0;
do {
text += i + ") something <br>";
i++;
}
while (i < 10);
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = text;
<p id="example"></p>
Functional loops - forEach, map, filter, also reduce (they loop through the function, but they are used if you need to do something with your array, etc.
// For example, in this case we loop through the number and double them up using the map function
var numbers = [65, 44, 12, 4];
document.getElementById("example").innerHTML = numbers.map(function(num){return num * 2});
<p id="example"></p>
For more information and examples about functional programming on arrays, look at the blog post Functional programming in JavaScript: map, filter and reduce.
This is an iterator for NON-sparse list where the index starts at 0, which is the typical scenario when dealing with document.getElementsByTagName or document.querySelectorAll)
function each( fn, data ) {
if(typeof fn == 'string')
eval('fn = function(data, i){' + fn + '}');
for(var i=0, L=this.length; i < L; i++)
fn.call( this[i], data, i );
return this;
}
Array.prototype.each = each;
Examples of usage:
Example #1
var arr = [];
[1, 2, 3].each( function(a){ a.push( this * this}, arr);
arr = [1, 4, 9]
Example #2
each.call(document.getElementsByTagName('p'), "this.className = data;",'blue');
Each p tag gets class="blue"
Example #3
each.call(document.getElementsByTagName('p'),
"if( i % 2 == 0) this.className = data;",
'red'
);
Every other p tag gets class="red">
Example #4
each.call(document.querySelectorAll('p.blue'),
function(newClass, i) {
if( i < 20 )
this.className = newClass;
}, 'green'
);
And finally the first 20 blue p tags are changed to green
Caution when using string as function: the function is created out-of-context and ought to be used only where you are certain of variable scoping. Otherwise, better to pass functions where scoping is more intuitive.
There's no inbuilt ability to break in forEach. To interrupt execution use the Array#some like below:
[1,2,3].some(function(number) {
return number === 1;
});
This works because some returns true as soon as any of the callbacks, executed in array order, returns true, short-circuiting the execution of the rest.
Original Answer
see Array prototype for some
I also would like to add this as a composition of a reverse loop and an answer above for someone that would like this syntax too.
var foo = [object,object,object];
for (var i = foo.length, item; item = foo[--i];) {
console.log(item);
}
Pros:
The benefit for this: You have the reference already in the first like that won't need to be declared later with another line. It is handy when looping trough the object array.
Cons:
This will break whenever the reference is false - falsey (undefined, etc.). It can be used as an advantage though. However, it would make it a little bit harder to read. And also depending on the browser it can be "not" optimized to work faster than the original one.
jQuery way using $.map:
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7];
var newData = $.map(data, function(element) {
if (element % 2 == 0) {
return element;
}
});
// newData = [2, 4, 6];
Use for...of where possible
async/await support
Skips non-numeric props
Immutable index
for...of
✅
✅
✅
forEach()
❌
✅
✅
for...in
✅
❌
✅
Regular for
✅
✅
❌
As one can see in the table above, for...of should be used wherever it fits. Since it supports async functions, skips non-numeric properties and prevents messing up the loop by accidentally modifying the loop index.
Syntax
const nums = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
for (const num of nums) {
/* Do something with num */
}
See for...of reference for more examples, link to specification and difference between for...of and for...in. Or maybe check this tutorial for some explanation on how they differ.
Using loops with ECMAScript 6 destructuring and the spread operator
Destructuring and using of the spread operator have proven quite useful for newcomers to ECMAScript 6 as being more human-readable/aesthetic, although some JavaScript veterans might consider it messy. Juniors or some other people might find it useful.
The following examples will use the for...of statement and the .forEach method.
Examples 6, 7, and 8 can be used with any functional loops like .map, .filter, .reduce, .sort, .every, .some. For more information about these methods, check out the Array Object.
Example 1: Normal for...of loop - no tricks here.
let arrSimple = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
for (let letter of arrSimple) {
console.log(letter);
}
Example 2: Split words to characters
let arrFruits = ['apple', 'orange', 'banana'];
for (let [firstLetter, ...restOfTheWord] of arrFruits) {
// Create a shallow copy using the spread operator
let [lastLetter] = [...restOfTheWord].reverse();
console.log(firstLetter, lastLetter, restOfTheWord);
}
Example 3: Looping with a key and value
// let arrSimple = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
// Instead of keeping an index in `i` as per example `for(let i = 0 ; i<arrSimple.length;i++)`
// this example will use a multi-dimensional array of the following format type:
// `arrWithIndex: [number, string][]`
let arrWithIndex = [
[0, 'a'],
[1, 'b'],
[2, 'c'],
];
// Same thing can be achieved using `.map` method
// let arrWithIndex = arrSimple.map((i, idx) => [idx, i]);
// Same thing can be achieved using `Object.entries`
// NOTE: `Object.entries` method doesn't work on Internet Explorer unless it's polyfilled
// let arrWithIndex = Object.entries(arrSimple);
for (let [key, value] of arrWithIndex) {
console.log(key, value);
}
Example 4: Get object properties inline
let arrWithObjects = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33
}
];
for (let { name, age: aliasForAge } of arrWithObjects) {
console.log(name, aliasForAge);
}
Example 5: Get deep object properties of what you need
let arrWithObjectsWithArr = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32,
tags: ['driver', 'chef', 'jogger']
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33,
tags: ['best chef', 'singer', 'dancer']
}
];
for (let { name, tags: [firstItemFromTags, ...restOfTags] } of arrWithObjectsWithArr) {
console.log(name, firstItemFromTags, restOfTags);
}
Example 6: Is Example 3 used with .forEach
let arrWithIndex = [
[0, 'a'],
[1, 'b'],
[2, 'c'],
];
// Not to be confused here, `forEachIndex` is the real index
// `mappedIndex` was created by "another user", so you can't really trust it
arrWithIndex.forEach(([mappedIndex, item], forEachIndex) => {
console.log(forEachIndex, mappedIndex, item);
});
Example 7: Is Example 4 used with .forEach
let arrWithObjects = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33
}
];
// NOTE: Destructuring objects while using shorthand functions
// are required to be surrounded by parentheses
arrWithObjects.forEach( ({ name, age: aliasForAge }) => {
console.log(name, aliasForAge)
});
Example 8: Is Example 5 used with .forEach
let arrWithObjectsWithArr = [{
name: 'Jon',
age: 32,
tags: ['driver', 'chef', 'jogger']
},
{
name: 'Elise',
age: 33,
tags: ['best chef', 'singer', 'dancer']
}
];
arrWithObjectsWithArr.forEach(({
name,
tags: [firstItemFromTags, ...restOfTags]
}) => {
console.log(name, firstItemFromTags, restOfTags);
});
Summary:
When iterating over an array, we often want to accomplish one of the following goals:
We want to iterate over the array and create a new array:
Array.prototype.map
We want to iterate over the array and don't create a new array:
Array.prototype.forEach
for..of loop
In JavaScript, there are many ways of accomplishing both of these goals. However, some are more convenient than others. Below you can find some commonly used methods (the most convenient IMO) to accomplish array iteration in JavaScript.
Creating new array: Map
map() is a function located on Array.prototype which can transform every element of an array and then returns a new array. map() takes as an argument a callback function and works in the following manner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
let newArr = arr.map((element, index, array) => {
return element * 2;
})
console.log(arr);
console.log(newArr);
The callback which we have passed into map() as an argument gets executed for every element. Then an array gets returned which has the same length as the original array. In this new array element is transformed by the callback function passed in as an argument to map().
The distinct difference between map and another loop mechanism like forEach and a for..of loop is that map returns a new array and leaves the old array intact (except if you explicitly manipulate it with thinks like splice).
Also, note that the map function's callback provides the index number of the current iteration as a second argument. Furthermore, does the third argument provide the array on which map was called? Sometimes these properties can be very useful.
Loop using forEach
forEach is a function which is located on Array.prototype which takes a callback function as an argument. It then executes this callback function for every element in the array. In contrast to the map() function, the forEach function returns nothing (undefined). For example:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
arr.forEach((element, index, array) => {
console.log(element * 2);
if (index === 4) {
console.log(array)
}
// index, and oldArray are provided as 2nd and 3th argument by the callback
})
console.log(arr);
Just like the map function, the forEach callback provides the index number of the current iteration as a second argument. Also, does the third argument provide the array on which forEach was called?
Loop through elements using for..of
The for..of loop loops through every element of an array (or any other iterable object). It works in the following manner:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
for(let element of arr) {
console.log(element * 2);
}
In the above example, element stands for an array element and arr is the array which we want to loop. Note that the name element is arbitrary, and we could have picked any other name like 'el' or something more declarative when this is applicable.
Don't confuse the for..in loop with the for..of loop. for..in will loop through all enumerable properties of the array whereas the for..of loop will only loop through the array elements. For example:
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
arr.foo = 'foo';
for(let element of arr) {
console.log(element);
}
for(let element in arr) {
console.log(element);
}
Performance
Today (2019-12-18) I perform test on my macOS v10.13.6 (High Sierra), on Chrome v 79.0, Safari v13.0.4 and Firefox v71.0 (64 bit) - conclusions about optimisation (and micro-optimisation which usually is not worth to introduce it to code because the benefit is small, but code complexity grows).
It looks like the traditional for i (Aa) is a good choice to write fast code on all browsers.
The other solutions, like for-of (Ad), all in group C.... are usually 2 - 10 (and more) times slower than Aa, but for small arrays it is ok to use it - for the sake of increase code clarity.
The loops with array length cached in n (Ab, Bb, Be) are sometimes faster, sometimes not. Probably compilers automatically detect this situation and introduce caching. The speed differences between the cached and no-cached versions (Aa, Ba, Bd) are about ~1%, so it looks like introduce n is a micro-optimisation.
The i-- like solutions where the loop starts from the last array element (Ac, Bc) are usually ~30% slower than forward solutions - probably the reason is the way of CPU memory cache working - forward memory reading is more optimal for CPU caching). Is recommended to NOT USE such solutions.
Details
In tests we calculate the sum of array elements. I perform a test for small arrays (10 elements) and big arrays (1M elements) and divide them into three groups:
A - for tests
B - while tests
C - other/alternative methods
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
//let arr = Array.from(Array(1000000), (x, i) => i%10);
function Aa(a, s=0) {
for(let i=0; i<a.length; i++) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Aa=', s);
}
function Ab(a, s=0) {
let n = a.length;
for(let i=0; i<n; i++) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ab=', s);
}
function Ac(a, s=0) {
for(let i=a.length; i--;) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ac=', s);
}
function Ad(a, s=0) {
for(let x of a) {
s += x;
}
console.log('Ad=', s);
}
function Ae(a, s=0) {
for(let i in a) if (a.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Ae=', s);
}
function Ba(a, s=0) {
let i = -1;
while(++i < a.length) {
s+= a[i];
}
console.log('Ba=', s);
}
function Bb(a, s=0) {
let i = -1;
let n = a.length;
while(++i < n) {
s+= a[i];
}
console.log('Bb=', s);
}
function Bc(a, s=0) {
let i = a.length;
while(i--) {
s += a[i];
}
console.log('Bc=', s);
}
function Bd(a, s=0) {
let i = 0;
do {
s+= a[i]
} while (++i < a.length);
console.log('Bd=', s);
}
function Be(a, s=0) {
let i = 0;
let n = a.length;
do {
s += a[i]
} while (++i < n);
console.log('Be=', s);
}
function Bf(a, s=0) {
const it = a.values();
let e;
while (!(e = it.next()).done) {
s+= e.value;
}
console.log('Bf=', s);
}
function Ca(a, s=0) {
a.map(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Ca=', s);
}
function Cb(a, s=0) {
a.forEach(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Cb=', s);
}
function Cc(a, s=0) {
a.every(x => (s += x, 1));
console.log('Cc=', s);
}
function Cd(a, s=0) {
a.filter(x => { s+=x });
console.log('Cd=',s);
}
function Ce(a, s=0) {
a.reduce((z, c) => { s+=c }, 0);
console.log('Ce=', s);
}
function Cf(a, s=0) {
a.reduceRight((z, c) => { s += c }, 0);
console.log('Cf=', s);
}
function Cg(a, s=0) {
a.some(x => { s += x } );
console.log('Cg=', s);
}
function Ch(a, s=0) {
Array.from(a, x=> s += x);
console.log('Cc=', s);
}
Aa(arr);
Ab(arr);
Ac(arr);
Ad(arr);
Ae(arr);
Ba(arr);
Bb(arr);
Bc(arr);
Bd(arr);
Be(arr);
Bf(arr);
Ca(arr);
Cb(arr);
Cc(arr);
Cd(arr);
Ce(arr);
Cf(arr);
Cg(arr);
Ch(arr);
<p style="color: red">This snippets only PRESENTS code used for benchmark - it not perform test itself</p>
Cross browser results
Results for all tested browsers
browsers**
Array with 10 elements
Results for Chrome. You can perform the test on your machine here.
Array with 1,000,000 elements
Results for Chrome. You can perform the test on your machine here
A way closest to your idea would be to use Array.forEach() which accepts a closure function which will be executed for each element of the array.
myArray.forEach(
(item) => {
// Do something
console.log(item);
}
);
Another viable way would be to use Array.map() which works in the same way, but it also takes all values that you return and returns them in a new array (essentially mapping each element to a new one), like this:
var myArray = [1, 2, 3];
myArray = myArray.map(
(item) => {
return item + 1;
}
);
console.log(myArray); // [2, 3, 4]
As per the new updated feature ECMAScript 6 (ES6) and ECMAScript 2015, you can use the following options with loops:
for loops
for(var i = 0; i < 5; i++){
console.log(i);
}
// Output: 0,1,2,3,4
for...in loops
let obj = {"a":1, "b":2}
for(let k in obj){
console.log(k)
}
// Output: a,b
Array.forEach()
let array = [1,2,3,4]
array.forEach((x) => {
console.log(x);
})
// Output: 1,2,3,4
for...of loops
let array = [1,2,3,4]
for(let x of array){
console.log(x);
}
// Output: 1,2,3,4
while loops
let x = 0
while(x < 5){
console.log(x)
x++
}
// Output: 1,2,3,4
do...while loops
let x = 0
do{
console.log(x)
x++
}while(x < 5)
// Output: 1,2,3,4
The lambda syntax doesn't usually work in Internet Explorer 10 or below.
I usually use the
[].forEach.call(arrayName,function(value,index){
console.log("value of the looped element" + value);
console.log("index of the looped element" + index);
});
If you are a jQuery fan and already have a jQuery file running, you should reverse the positions of the index and value parameters
$("#ul>li").each(function(**index, value**){
console.log("value of the looped element" + value);
console.log("index of the looped element" + index);
});
You can call forEach like this:
forEach will iterate over the array you provide and for each iteration it will have element which holds the value of that iteration. If you need index you can get the current index by passing the i as the second parameter in the callback function for forEach.
Foreach is basically a High Order Function, Which takes another function as its parameter.
let theArray= [1,3,2];
theArray.forEach((element) => {
// Use the element of the array
console.log(element)
}
Output:
1
3
2
You can also iterate over an array like this:
for (let i=0; i<theArray.length; i++) {
console.log(i); // i will have the value of each index
}
If you want to use forEach(), it will look like -
theArray.forEach ( element => {
console.log(element);
});
If you want to use for(), it will look like -
for(let idx = 0; idx < theArray.length; idx++){
let element = theArray[idx];
console.log(element);
}
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Is there a way to empty an array and if so possibly with .remove()?
For instance,
A = [1,2,3,4];
How can I empty that?
Ways to clear an existing array A:
Method 1
(this was my original answer to the question)
A = [];
This code will set the variable A to a new empty array. This is perfect if you don't have references to the original array A anywhere else because this actually creates a brand new (empty) array. You should be careful with this method because if you have referenced this array from another variable or property, the original array will remain unchanged. Only use this if you only reference the array by its original variable A.
This is also the fastest solution.
This code sample shows the issue you can encounter when using this method:
var arr1 = ['a','b','c','d','e','f'];
var arr2 = arr1; // Reference arr1 by another variable
arr1 = [];
console.log(arr2); // Output ['a','b','c','d','e','f']
Method 2 (as suggested by Matthew Crumley)
A.length = 0
This will clear the existing array by setting its length to 0. It also works when using "strict mode" in ECMAScript 5 because the length property of an array is a read/write property.
Method 3 (as suggested by Anthony)
A.splice(0,A.length)
Using .splice() will work perfectly, but since the .splice() function will return an array with all the removed items, it will actually return a copy of the original array. Benchmarks suggest that this has no effect on performance whatsoever.
Method 4 (as suggested by tanguy_k)
while(A.length > 0) {
A.pop();
}
This solution is not very succinct, and it is also the slowest solution, contrary to earlier benchmarks referenced in the original answer.
Performance
Of all the methods of clearing an existing array, methods 2 and 3 are very similar in performance and are a lot faster than method 4. See this benchmark.
As pointed out by Diadistis in their answer below, the original benchmarks that were used to determine the performance of the four methods described above were flawed. The original benchmark reused the cleared array so the second iteration was clearing an array that was already empty.
The following benchmark fixes this flaw: http://jsben.ch/#/hyj65. It clearly shows that methods #2 (length property) and #3 (splice) are the fastest (not counting method #1 which doesn't change the original array).
This has been a hot topic and the cause of a lot of controversy. There are actually many correct answers and because this answer has been marked as the accepted answer for a very long time, I will include all of the methods here.
If you need to keep the original array because you have other references to it that should be updated too, you can clear it without creating a new array by setting its length to zero:
A.length = 0;
Here the fastest working implementation while keeping the same array ("mutable"):
function clearArray(array) {
while (array.length > 0) {
array.pop();
}
}
FYI it cannot be simplified to while (array.pop()): the tests will fail.
FYI Map and Set define clear(), it would have seem logical to have clear() for Array too.
TypeScript version:
function clearArray<T>(array: T[]) {
while (array.length > 0) {
array.pop();
}
}
The corresponding tests:
describe('clearArray()', () => {
test('clear regular array', () => {
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
clearArray(array);
expect(array.length).toEqual(0);
expect(array[0]).toEqual(undefined);
expect(array[4]).toEqual(undefined);
});
test('clear array that contains undefined and null', () => {
const array = [1, undefined, 3, null, 5];
clearArray(array);
expect(array.length).toEqual(0);
expect(array[0]).toEqual(undefined);
expect(array[4]).toEqual(undefined);
});
});
Here the updated jsPerf: http://jsperf.com/array-destroy/32 http://jsperf.com/array-destroy/152
jsPerf offline. Similar benchmark: https://jsben.ch/hyj65
A more cross-browser friendly and more optimal solution will be to use the splice method to empty the content of the array A as below:
A.splice(0, A.length);
The answers that have no less that 2739 upvotes by now are misleading and incorrect.
The question is: "How do you empty your existing array?" E.g. for A = [1,2,3,4].
Saying "A = [] is the answer" is ignorant and absolutely incorrect. [] == [] is false.
This is because these two arrays are two separate, individual objects, with their own two identities, taking up their own space in the digital world, each on its own.
Let's say your mother asks you to empty the trash can.
You don't bring in a new one as if you've done what you've been asked for.
Instead, you empty the trash can.
You don't replace the filled one with a new empty can, and you don't take the label "A" from the filled can and stick it to the new one as in A = [1,2,3,4]; A = [];
Emptying an array object is the easiest thing ever:
A.length = 0;
This way, the can under "A" is not only empty, but also as clean as new!
Furthermore, you are not required to remove the trash by hand until the can is empty! You were asked to empty the existing one, completely, in one turn, not to pick up the trash until the can gets empty, as in:
while(A.length > 0) {
A.pop();
}
Nor, to put your left hand at the bottom of the trash, holding it with your right at the top to be able to pull its content out as in:
A.splice(0, A.length);
No, you were asked to empty it:
A.length = 0;
This is the only code that correctly empties the contents of a given JavaScript array.
Performance test:
http://jsperf.com/array-clear-methods/3
a = []; // 37% slower
a.length = 0; // 89% slower
a.splice(0, a.length) // 97% slower
while (a.length > 0) {
a.pop();
} // Fastest
You can add this to your JavaScript file to allow your arrays to be "cleared":
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
Then you can use it like this:
var list = [1, 2, 3];
list.clear();
Or if you want to be sure you don't destroy something:
if (!Array.prototype.clear) {
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
}
Lots of people think you shouldn't modify native objects (like Array), and I'm inclined to agree. Please use caution in deciding how to handle this.
You can easily create a function to do that for you, change the length or even add it to native Array as remove() function for reuse.
Imagine you have this array:
var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; //the array
OK, just simply run this:
arr.length = 0; //change the length
and the result is:
[] //result
easy way to empty an array...
Also using loop which is not necessary but just another way to do that:
/* could be arr.pop() or arr.splice(0)
don't need to return as main array get changed */
function remove(arr) {
while(arr.length) {
arr.shift();
}
}
There are also tricky way which you can think about, for example something like this:
arr.splice(0, arr.length); //[]
So if arr has 5 items, it will splice 5 items from 0, which means nothing will remain in the array.
Also other ways like simply reassign the array for example:
arr = []; //[]
If you look at the Array functions, there are many other ways to do this, but the most recommended one could be changing the length.
As I said in the first place, you can also prototype remove() as it's the answer to your question. you can simply choose one of the methods above and prototype it to Array object in JavaScript, something like:
Array.prototype.remove = Array.prototype.remove || function() {
this.splice(0, this.length);
};
and you can simply call it like this to empty any array in your javascript application:
arr.remove(); //[]
If you are using
a = [];
Then you are assigning new array reference to a, if reference in a is already assigned to any other variable, then it will not empty that array too and hence garbage collector will not collect that memory.
For ex.
var a=[1,2,3];
var b=a;
a=[];
console.log(b);// It will print [1,2,3];
or
a.length = 0;
When we specify a.length, we are just resetting boundaries of the array and memory for rest array elements will be connected by garbage collector.
Instead of these two solutions are better.
a.splice(0,a.length)
and
while(a.length > 0) {
a.pop();
}
As per previous answer by kenshou.html, second method is faster.
There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding the while;pop/shift performance both in answers and comments. The while/pop solution has (as expected) the worst performance. What's actually happening is that setup runs only once for each sample that runs the snippet in a loop. eg:
var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
arr.push(Math.random());
}
for (var j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
while (arr.length > 0) {
arr.pop(); // this executes 100 times, not 100000
}
}
I have created a new test that works correctly :
http://jsperf.com/empty-javascript-array-redux
Warning: even in this version of the test you can't actually see the real difference because cloning the array takes up most of the test time. It still shows that splice is the fastest way to clear the array (not taking [] into consideration because while it is the fastest it's not actually clearing the existing array).
Array.prototype.clear = function() {
this.length = 0;
};
And call it: array.clear();
In case you are interested in the memory allocation, you may compare each approach using something like this jsfiddle in conjunction with chrome dev tools' timeline tab. You will want to use the trash bin icon at the bottom to force a garbage collection after 'clearing' the array. This should give you a more definite answer for the browser of your choice. A lot of answers here are old and I wouldn't rely on them but rather test as in #tanguy_k's answer above.
(for an intro to the aforementioned tab you can check out here)
Stackoverflow forces me to copy the jsfiddle so here it is:
<html>
<script>
var size = 1000*100
window.onload = function() {
document.getElementById("quantifier").value = size
}
function scaffold()
{
console.log("processing Scaffold...");
a = new Array
}
function start()
{
size = document.getElementById("quantifier").value
console.log("Starting... quantifier is " + size);
console.log("starting test")
for (i=0; i<size; i++){
a[i]="something"
}
console.log("done...")
}
function tearDown()
{
console.log("processing teardown");
a.length=0
}
</script>
<body>
<span style="color:green;">Quantifier:</span>
<input id="quantifier" style="color:green;" type="text"></input>
<button onclick="scaffold()">Scaffold</button>
<button onclick="start()">Start</button>
<button onclick="tearDown()">Clean</button>
<br/>
</body>
</html>
And you should take note that it may depend on the type of the array elements, as javascript manages strings differently than other primitive types, not to mention arrays of objects. The type may affect what happens.
Use a modified version of Jan's initial suggestion:
var originalLength = A.length;
for (var i = originalLength; i > 0; i--) {
A.pop();
}
Terser:
for (let i = A.length; i > 0;A.pop(),i--) {}
Or here's another take:
while(!A[Symbol.iterator]().next().done)A.shift()
A.splice(0);
I just did this on some code I am working on. It cleared the array.
If you use constants then you have no choice:
const numbers = [1, 2, 3]
You can not reasign:
numbers = []
You can only truncate:
numbers.length = 0
To Empty a Current memory location of an array use: 'myArray.length = 0' or 'myArray.pop() UN-till its length is 0'
length : You can set the length property to truncate an array at any time. When you extend an array by changing its length property, the number of actual elements increases.
pop() : The pop method removes the last element from an array and returns that returns the removed value.
shift() : The shift method removes the element at the zeroeth index and shifts the values at consecutive indexes down, then returns the removed value.
Example:
var arr = ['77'];
arr.length = 20;
console.log("Increasing : ", arr); // (20) ["77", empty × 19]
arr.length = 12;
console.log("Truncating : ", arr); // (12) ["77", empty × 11]
var mainArr = new Array();
mainArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
var refArr = mainArr;
console.log('Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
refArr.length = 3;
console.log('Length: ~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
mainArr.push('0');
console.log('Push to the End of Current Array Memory Location \n~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
mainArr.poptill_length(0);
console.log('Empty Array \n~ Current', mainArr, 'Refered', refArr);
Array.prototype.poptill_length = function (e) {
while (this.length) {
if( this.length == e ) break;
console.log('removed last element:', this.pop());
}
};
new Array() | [] Create an Array with new memory location by using Array constructor or array literal.
mainArr = []; // a new empty array is addressed to mainArr.
var arr = new Array('10'); // Array constructor
arr.unshift('1'); // add to the front
arr.push('15'); // add to the end
console.log("After Adding : ", arr); // ["1", "10", "15"]
arr.pop(); // remove from the end
arr.shift(); // remove from the front
console.log("After Removing : ", arr); // ["10"]
var arrLit = ['14', '17'];
console.log("array literal « ", indexedItem( arrLit ) ); // {0,14}{1,17}
function indexedItem( arr ) {
var indexedStr = "";
arr.forEach(function(item, index, array) {
indexedStr += "{"+index+","+item+"}";
console.log(item, index);
});
return indexedStr;
}
slice() : By using slice function we get an shallow copy of elements from the original array, with new memory address, So that any modification on cloneArr will not affect to an actual|original array.
var shallowCopy = mainArr.slice(); // this is how to make a copy
var cloneArr = mainArr.slice(0, 3);
console.log('Main', mainArr, '\tCloned', cloneArr);
cloneArr.length = 0; // Clears current memory location of an array.
console.log('Main', mainArr, '\tCloned', cloneArr);
I'm surprised no one has suggested this yet:
let xs = [1,2,3,4];
for (let i in xs)
delete xs[i];
This yields an array in quite a different state from the other solutions. In a sense, the array has been 'emptied':
xs
=> Array [ <4 empty slots> ]
[...xs]
=> Array [ undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined ]
xs.length
=> 4
xs[0]
=> ReferenceError: reference to undefined property xs[0]
You can produce an equivalent array with [,,,,] or Array(4)