Develop Reference

Does this for loop iterate multiple times?

I have been discussing some code with colleagues:
for(const a of arr) {
if(a.thing)
continue;
// do a thing
}
A suggestion was to filter this and use a forEach
arr.filter(a => !a.thing)
.forEach(a => /* do a thing */);
There was a discussion about iterating more than necessary. I've looked this up, and I can't find anything. I also tried to figure out how to view the optimized output, but I don't know how to do that either.
I would expect that the filter and forEach turn into code that is very much like the for of with the continue, but I don't know how to be sure.
How can I find out? The only thing I've tried so far is google.

Your first example (the for in loop) is O(n), which will execute n times (n being the size of the array).
Your second example (the filter forEach) is O(n+m), which will execute n times in the filter (n being the size of the array), and then m times (m being the size of the resulting array after the filter takes place).
As such, the first example is faster. However, in this type of example without an exceedingly large sample set the difference is probably measured in microseconds or nanoseconds.
With regards to compilation optimization, that is essentially all memory access optimization. The major interpreters and engines will all analyze issues in code relating to function, variable, and property access such as how often and what the shape of the access graph looks like; and then, with all of that information, optimize their hidden structure to be more efficient for access. Essentially no optimization so far as loop replacement or process analysis is done on the code as it for the most part is optimized while it is running (if a specific part of code does start taking an excessively long time, it may have its code optimized).
When first executing the JavaScript code, V8 leverages full-codegen which directly translates the parsed JavaScript into machine code without any transformation. This allows it to start executing machine code very fast. Note that V8 does not use intermediate bytecode representation this way removing the need for an interpreter.
When your code has run for some time, the profiler thread has gathered enough data to tell which method should be optimized.
Next, Crankshaft optimizations begin in another thread. It translates the JavaScript abstract syntax tree to a high-level static single-assignment (SSA) representation called Hydrogen and tries to optimize that Hydrogen graph. Most optimizations are done at this level.
-https://blog.sessionstack.com/how-javascript-works-inside-the-v8-engine-5-tips-on-how-to-write-optimized-code-ac089e62b12e
*While continue may cause the execution to go to the next iteration, it still counts as an iteration of the loop.

The right answer is "it really doesn't matter". Some previously posted answer states that the second approach is O(n+m), but I beg to differ. The same exact "m" operations will also run in the first approach. In the worst case, even if you consider the second batch of operations as "m" (which doesn't really make much sense - we're talking about the same n elements given as input - that's not how complexity analysis works), in the worst case m==n and the complexity will be O(2n), which is just O(n) in the end anyway.
To directly answer your question, yes, the second approach will iterate over the collection twice while the first one will do it only once. But that probably won't make any difference to you. In cases like these, you probably want to improve readability over efficiency. How many items does your collection have? 10? 100? It's better to write code that will be easier to maintain over time than to strive for maximum efficiency all the time - because most of the time it just doesn't make any difference.
Moreover, iterating the same collection more than once doesn't mean your code runs slower. It's all about what's inside each loop. For instance:
for (const item of arr) {
// do A
// do B
}
Is virtually the same as:
for (const item of arr) {
// do A
}
for (const item of arr) {
// do B
}
The for loop itself doesn't add any significant overhead to the CPU. Although you would probably want to write a single loop anyway, if your code readability is improved when you do two loops, go ahead and do it.
Efficiency is about picking the right algorithm
If you really need to be efficient, you don't want to iterate through the whole collection, not even once. You want some smarter way to do it: either divide and conquer (O(log n)) or use hash maps (O(1)). A hash map a day keeps the inefficiency away :-)
Do things only once
Now, back to your example, if I find myself iterating over and over and doing the same operation every time, I'd just run the filtering operation only once, at the beginning:
// during initialization
const things = [];
const notThings = [];
for (const item of arr) {
item.thing ? things.push(item) : notThings.push(item);
}
// now every time you need to iterate through the items...
for (const a of notThings) { // replaced arr with notThings
// if (a.thing) // <- no need to check this anymore
// continue;
// do a thing
}
And then you can freely iterate over notThings, knowing that unwanted items were already filtered out. Makes sense?
Criticism to "for of is faster than calling methods"
Some people like to state that for of will always be faster than calling forEach(). We just cannot say that. There are lots of Javascript interpreters out there and for each one there are different versions, each with its particular ways of optimizing things. To prove my point, I was able to make filter() + forEach() run faster than for of in Node.js v10 on macOS Mojave:
const COLLECTION_SIZE = 10000;
const RUNS = 10000;
const collection = Array.from(Array(COLLECTION_SIZE), (e, i) => i);
function forOf() {
for (const item of collection) {
if (item % 2 === 0) {
continue;
}
// do something
}
}
function filterForEach() {
collection
.filter(item => item % 2 === 0)
.forEach(item => { /* do something */ });
}
const fns = [forOf, filterForEach];
function timed(fn) {
if (!fn.times) fn.times = [];
const i = fn.times.length;
fn.times[i] = process.hrtime.bigint();
fn();
fn.times[i] = process.hrtime.bigint() - fn.times[i];
}
for (let r = 0; r < RUNS; r++) {
for (const fn of fns) {
timed(fn);
}
}
for (const fn of fns) {
const times = fn.times;
times.sort((a, b) => a - b);
const median = times[Math.floor(times.length / 2)];
const name = fn.constructor.name;
console.info(`${name}: ${median}`);
}
Times (in nanoseconds):
forOf: 81704
filterForEach: 32709
for of was consistently slower in all tests I ran, always around 50% slower. That's the main point of this answer: Do not rely on an interpreter's implementation details, because that can (and will) change over time. Unless you're developing for embedded or high-efficiency/low-latency systems -- where you need to be as close to the hardware as possible -- get to know your algorithm complexities first.

An easy way to see how many times each part of that statement is called would be to add log statements like so and run it in the Chrome console
var arr = [1,2,3,4];
arr.filter(a => {console.log("hit1") ;return a%2 != 0;})
.forEach(a => {console.log("hit2")});
"Hit1" should print to the console 4 times regardless in this case. If it were to iterate too many times, we'd see "hit2" output 4 times, but after running this code it only outputs twice. So your assumption is partially correct, that the second time it iterates, it doesn't iterate over the whole set. However it does iterate over the whole set once in the .filter and then iterates again over the part of the set that matches the condition again in the .filter
Another good place to look is in the MDN developer docs here especially in the "Polyfill" section which outlines the exact equivalent algorithm and you can see that .filter() here returns the variable res, which is what .forEach would be performed upon.
So while it overall iterates over the set twice, in the .forEach section it only iterates over the part of the set that matches the .filter condition.

Why is <= slower than < using this code snippet in V8?

I am reading the slides Breaking the Javascript Speed Limit with V8, and there is an example like the code below. I cannot figure out why <= is slower than < in this case, can anybody explain that? Any comments are appreciated.
Slow:
this.isPrimeDivisible = function(candidate) {
for (var i = 1; i <= this.prime_count; ++i) {
if (candidate % this.primes[i] == 0) return true;
}
return false;
}
(Hint: primes is an array of length prime_count)
Faster:
this.isPrimeDivisible = function(candidate) {
for (var i = 1; i < this.prime_count; ++i) {
if (candidate % this.primes[i] == 0) return true;
}
return false;
}
[More Info] the speed improvement is significant, in my local environment test, the results are as follows:
V8 version 7.3.0 (candidate)
Slow:
time d8 prime.js
287107
12.71 user
0.05 system
0:12.84 elapsed
Faster:
time d8 prime.js
287107
1.82 user
0.01 system
0:01.84 elapsed

Other answers and comments mention that the difference between the two loops is that the first one executes one more iteration than the second one. This is true, but in an array that grows to 25,000 elements, one iteration more or less would only make a miniscule difference. As a ballpark guess, if we assume the average length as it grows is 12,500, then the difference we might expect should be around 1/12,500, or only 0.008%.
The performance difference here is much larger than would be explained by that one extra iteration, and the problem is explained near the end of the presentation.
this.primes is a contiguous array (every element holds a value) and the elements are all numbers.
A JavaScript engine may optimize such an array to be an simple array of actual numbers, instead of an array of objects which happen to contain numbers but could contain other values or no value. The first format is much faster to access: it takes less code, and the array is much smaller so it will fit better in cache. But there are some conditions that may prevent this optimized format from being used.
One condition would be if some of the array elements are missing. For example:
let array = [];
a[0] = 10;
a[2] = 20;
Now what is the value of a[1]? It has no value. (It isn't even correct to say it has the value undefined - an array element containing the undefined value is different from an array element that is missing entirely.)
There isn't a way to represent this with numbers only, so the JavaScript engine is forced to use the less optimized format. If a[1] contained a numeric value like the other two elements, the array could potentially be optimized into an array of numbers only.
Another reason for an array to be forced into the deoptimized format can be if you attempt to access an element outside the bounds of the array, as discussed in the presentation.
The first loop with <= attempts to read an element past the end of the array. The algorithm still works correctly, because in the last extra iteration:
this.primes[i] evaluates to undefined because i is past the array end.
candidate % undefined (for any value of candidate) evaluates to NaN.
NaN == 0 evaluates to false.
Therefore, the return true is not executed.
So it's as if the extra iteration never happened - it has no effect on the rest of the logic. The code produces the same result as it would without the extra iteration.
But to get there, it tried to read a nonexistent element past the end of the array. This forces the array out of optimization - or at least did at the time of this talk.
The second loop with < reads only elements that exist within the array, so it allows an optimized array and code.
The problem is described in pages 90-91 of the talk, with related discussion in the pages before and after that.
I happened to attend this very Google I/O presentation and talked with the speaker (one of the V8 authors) afterward. I had been using a technique in my own code that involved reading past the end of an array as a misguided (in hindsight) attempt to optimize one particular situation. He confirmed that if you tried to even read past the end of an array, it would prevent the simple optimized format from being used.
If what the V8 author said is still true, then reading past the end of the array would prevent it from being optimized and it would have to fall back to the slower format.
Now it's possible that V8 has been improved in the meantime to efficiently handle this case, or that other JavaScript engines handle it differently. I don't know one way or the other on that, but this deoptimization is what the presentation was talking about.

I work on V8 at Google, and wanted to provide some additional insight on top of the existing answers and comments.
For reference, here's the full code example from the slides:
var iterations = 25000;
function Primes() {
this.prime_count = 0;
this.primes = new Array(iterations);
this.getPrimeCount = function() { return this.prime_count; }
this.getPrime = function(i) { return this.primes[i]; }
this.addPrime = function(i) {
this.primes[this.prime_count++] = i;
}
this.isPrimeDivisible = function(candidate) {
for (var i = 1; i <= this.prime_count; ++i) {
if ((candidate % this.primes[i]) == 0) return true;
}
return false;
}
};
function main() {
var p = new Primes();
var c = 1;
while (p.getPrimeCount() < iterations) {
if (!p.isPrimeDivisible(c)) {
p.addPrime(c);
}
c++;
}
console.log(p.getPrime(p.getPrimeCount() - 1));
}
main();
First and foremost, the performance difference has nothing to do with the < and <= operators directly. So please don't jump through hoops just to avoid <= in your code because you read on Stack Overflow that it's slow --- it isn't!
Second, folks pointed out that the array is "holey". This was not clear from the code snippet in OP's post, but it is clear when you look at the code that initializes this.primes:
this.primes = new Array(iterations);
This results in an array with a HOLEY elements kind in V8, even if the array ends up completely filled/packed/contiguous. In general, operations on holey arrays are slower than operations on packed arrays, but in this case the difference is negligible: it amounts to 1 additional Smi (small integer) check (to guard against holes) each time we hit this.primes[i] in the loop within isPrimeDivisible. No big deal!
TL;DR The array being HOLEY is not the problem here.
Others pointed out that the code reads out of bounds. It's generally recommended to avoid reading beyond the length of arrays, and in this case it would indeed have avoided the massive drop in performance. But why though? V8 can handle some of these out-of-bound scenarios with only a minor performance impact. What's so special about this particular case, then?
The out-of-bounds read results in this.primes[i] being undefined on this line:
if ((candidate % this.primes[i]) == 0) return true;
And that brings us to the real issue: the % operator is now being used with non-integer operands!
integer % someOtherInteger can be computed very efficiently; JavaScript engines can produce highly-optimized machine code for this case.
integer % undefined on the other hand amounts to a way less efficient Float64Mod, since undefined is represented as a double.
The code snippet can indeed be improved by changing the <= into < on this line:
for (var i = 1; i <= this.prime_count; ++i) {
...not because <= is somehow a superior operator than <, but just because this avoids the out-of-bounds read in this particular case.

TL;DR The slower loop is due to accessing the Array 'out-of-bounds', which either forces the engine to recompile the function with less or even no optimizations OR to not compile the function with any of these optimizations to begin with (if the (JIT-)Compiler detected/suspected this condition before the first compilation 'version'), read on below why;
Someone just has to say this (utterly amazed nobody already did):
There used to be a time when the OP's snippet would be a de-facto example in a beginners programming book intended to outline/emphasize that 'arrays' in javascript are indexed starting at 0, not 1, and as such be used as an example of a common 'beginners mistake' (don't you love how I avoided the phrase 'programing error' ;)): out-of-bounds Array access.
Example 1:
a Dense Array (being contiguous (means in no gaps between indexes) AND actually an element at each index) of 5 elements using 0-based indexing (always in ES262).
var arr_five_char=['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e']; // arr_five_char.length === 5
// indexes are: 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 // there is NO index number 5
Thus we are not really talking about performance difference between < vs <= (or 'one extra iteration'), but we are talking:
'why does the correct snippet (b) run faster than erroneous snippet (a)'?
The answer is 2-fold (although from a ES262 language implementer's perspective both are forms of optimization):
Data-Representation: how to represent/store the Array internally in memory (object, hashmap, 'real' numerical array, etc.)
Functional Machine-code: how to compile the code that accesses/handles (read/modify) these 'Arrays'
Item 1 is sufficiently (and correctly IMHO) explained by the accepted answer, but that only spends 2 words ('the code') on Item 2: compilation.
More precisely: JIT-Compilation and even more importantly JIT-RE-Compilation !
The language specification is basically just a description of a set of algorithms ('steps to perform to achieve defined end-result'). Which, as it turns out is a very beautiful way to describe a language.
And it leaves the actual method that an engine uses to achieve specified results open to the implementers, giving ample opportunity to come up with more efficient ways to produce defined results.
A spec conforming engine should give spec conforming results for any defined input.
Now, with javascript code/libraries/usage increasing, and remembering how much resources (time/memory/etc) a 'real' compiler uses, it's clear we can't make users visiting a web-page wait that long (and require them to have that many resources available).
Imagine the following simple function:
function sum(arr){
var r=0, i=0;
for(;i<arr.length;) r+=arr[i++];
return r;
}
Perfectly clear, right? Doesn't require ANY extra clarification, Right? The return-type is Number, right?
Well.. no, no & no... It depends on what argument you pass to named function parameter arr...
sum('abcde'); // String('0abcde')
sum([1,2,3]); // Number(6)
sum([1,,3]); // Number(NaN)
sum(['1',,3]); // String('01undefined3')
sum([1,,'3']); // String('NaN3')
sum([1,2,{valueOf:function(){return this.val}, val:6}]); // Number(9)
var val=5; sum([1,2,{valueOf:function(){return val}}]); // Number(8)
See the problem ? Then consider this is just barely scraping the massive possible permutations...
We don't even know what kind of TYPE the function RETURN until we are done...
Now imagine this same function-code actually being used on different types or even variations of input, both completely literally (in source code) described and dynamically in-program generated 'arrays'..
Thus, if you were to compile function sum JUST ONCE, then the only way that always returns the spec-defined result for any and all types of input then, obviously, only by performing ALL spec-prescribed main AND sub steps can guarantee spec conforming results (like an unnamed pre-y2k browser).
No optimizations (because no assumptions) and dead slow interpreted scripting language remains.
JIT-Compilation (JIT as in Just In Time) is the current popular solution.
So, you start to compile the function using assumptions regarding what it does, returns and accepts.
you come up with checks as simple as possible to detect if the function might start returning non-spec conformant results (like because it receives unexpected input).
Then, toss away the previous compiled result and recompile to something more elaborate, decide what to do with the partial result you already have (is it valid to be trusted or compute again to be sure), tie in the function back into the program and try again. Ultimately falling back to stepwise script-interpretation as in spec.
All of this takes time!
All browsers work on their engines, for each and every sub-version you will see things improve and regress. Strings were at some point in history really immutable strings (hence array.join was faster than string concatenation), now we use ropes (or similar) which alleviate the problem. Both return spec-conforming results and that is what matters!
Long story short: just because javascript's language's semantics often got our back (like with this silent bug in the OP's example) does not mean that 'stupid' mistakes increases our chances of the compiler spitting out fast machine-code. It assumes we wrote the 'usually' correct instructions: the current mantra we 'users' (of the programming language) must have is: help the compiler, describe what we want, favor common idioms (take hints from asm.js for basic understanding what browsers can try to optimize and why).
Because of this, talking about performance is both important BUT ALSO a mine-field (and because of said mine-field I really want to end with pointing to (and quoting) some relevant material:
Access to nonexistent object properties and out of bounds array elements returns the undefined value instead of raising an exception. These dynamic features make programming in JavaScript convenient, but they also make it difficult to compile JavaScript into efficient machine code.
...
An important premise for effective JIT optimization is that programmers use dynamic features of JavaScript in a systematic way. For example, JIT compilers exploit the fact that object properties are often added to an object of a given type in a specific order or that out of bounds array accesses occur rarely. JIT compilers exploit these regularity assumptions to generate efficient machine code at runtime. If a code block satisfies the assumptions, the JavaScript engine executes efficient, generated machine code. Otherwise, the engine must fall back to slower code or to interpreting the program.
Source:
"JITProf: Pinpointing JIT-unfriendly JavaScript Code"
Berkeley publication,2014, by Liang Gong, Michael Pradel, Koushik Sen.
http://software-lab.org/publications/jitprof_tr_aug3_2014.pdf
ASM.JS (also doesn't like out off bound array access):
Ahead-Of-Time Compilation
Because asm.js is a strict subset of JavaScript, this specification only defines the validation logic—the execution semantics is simply that of JavaScript. However, validated asm.js is amenable to ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation. Moreover, the code generated by an AOT compiler can be quite efficient, featuring:
unboxed representations of integers and floating-point numbers;
absence of runtime type checks;
absence of garbage collection; and
efficient heap loads and stores (with implementation strategies varying by platform).
Code that fails to validate must fall back to execution by traditional means, e.g., interpretation and/or just-in-time (JIT) compilation.
http://asmjs.org/spec/latest/
and finally https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/07/bringing-asm-js-to-chakra-microsoft-edge/
were there is a small subsection about the engine's internal performance improvements when removing bounds-check (whilst just lifting the bounds-check outside the loop already had an improvement of 40%).
EDIT:
note that multiple sources talk about different levels of JIT-Recompilation down to interpretation.
Theoretical example based on above information, regarding the OP's snippet:
Call to isPrimeDivisible
Compile isPrimeDivisible using general assumptions (like no out of bounds access)
Do work
BAM, suddenly array accesses out of bounds (right at the end).
Crap, says engine, let's recompile that isPrimeDivisible using different (less) assumptions, and this example engine doesn't try to figure out if it can reuse current partial result, so
Recompute all work using slower function (hopefully it finishes, otherwise repeat and this time just interpret the code).
Return result
Hence time then was:
First run (failed at end) + doing all work all over again using slower machine-code for each iteration + the recompilation etc.. clearly takes >2 times longer in this theoretical example!
EDIT 2: (disclaimer: conjecture based in facts below)
The more I think of it, the more I think that this answer might actually explain the more dominant reason for this 'penalty' on erroneous snippet a (or performance-bonus on snippet b, depending on how you think of it), precisely why I'm adament in calling it (snippet a) a programming error:
It's pretty tempting to assume that this.primes is a 'dense array' pure numerical which was either
Hard-coded literal in source-code (known excelent candidate to become a 'real' array as everything is already known to the compiler before compile-time) OR
most likely generated using a numerical function filling a pre-sized (new Array(/*size value*/)) in ascending sequential order (another long-time known candidate to become a 'real' array).
We also know that the primes array's length is cached as prime_count ! (indicating it's intent and fixed size).
We also know that most engines initially pass Arrays as copy-on-modify (when needed) which makes handeling them much more fast (if you don't change them).
It is therefore reasonable to assume that Array primes is most likely already an optimized array internally which doesn't get changed after creation (simple to know for the compiler if there is no code modifiying the array after creation) and therefore is already (if applicable to the engine) stored in an optimized way, pretty much as if it was a Typed Array.
As I have tried to make clear with my sum function example, the argument(s) that get passed higly influence what actually needs to happen and as such how that particular code is being compiled to machine-code. Passing a String to the sum function shouldn't change the string but change how the function is JIT-Compiled! Passing an Array to sum should compile a different (perhaps even additional for this type, or 'shape' as they call it, of object that got passed) version of machine-code.
As it seems slightly bonkus to convert the Typed_Array-like primes Array on-the-fly to something_else while the compiler knows this function is not even going to modify it!
Under these assumptions that leaves 2 options:
Compile as number-cruncher assuming no out-of-bounds, run into out-of-bounds problem at the end, recompile and redo work (as outlined in theoretical example in edit 1 above)
Compiler has already detected (or suspected?) out of bound acces up-front and the function was JIT-Compiled as if the argument passed was a sparse object resulting in slower functional machine-code (as it would have more checks/conversions/coercions etc.). In other words: the function was never eligable for certain optimisations, it was compiled as if it received a 'sparse array'(-like) argument.
I now really wonder which of these 2 it is!

To add some scientificness to it, here's a jsperf
https://jsperf.com/ints-values-in-out-of-array-bounds
It tests the control case of an array filled with ints and looping doing modular arithmetic while staying within bounds. It has 5 test cases:
1. Looping out of bounds
2. Holey arrays
3. Modular arithmetic against NaNs
4. Completely undefined values
5. Using a new Array()
It shows that the first 4 cases are really bad for performance. Looping out of bounds is a bit better than the other 3, but all 4 are roughly 98% slower than the best case.
The new Array() case is almost as good as the raw array, just a few percent slower.

comparing filter and for-loop performance in JavaScript

I have an array of 10000 objects, and I have to count how many of of the first 500 ones satisfy some conditions. This operation has to be executed several times during an animation.
Which code has a better performance (or is preferable for other reasons) among the following two cases?
Version 1
var el,ct=0;
for (var j=0;j<500;j++) {
el=arr[j];
if (el.a==1 && el.b<8 && el.c>2) ct++;
}
Version 2
var ct=arr.filter(function(el,j){return j<500 && el.a==1 && el.b<8 && el.c>2}).length;

when you compare the two snippets and just care for performance, then the for loop is more efficient. I have not tried it and benchmarked it myself, but here is a general description of the differences.
In the for loop version, you only "visit" the first 500 elements of the list. the function passed to the filter will always be applied to all elements, doing an additional check for the index of the element being below 500.
Just from that fact, that you have more elements to inspect, there's more work to do in the filter case.
Further, there is a general price to be paid when calling a function in any programming language. That is to update the stack (in which function local variables are stored; variables visible in the calling function are not visible in the called function. To ensure that, the stack is used). The for loop stays in the same function, therefore local variables scope does not change, and no stack needs to be updated.
Therefore, from a mere performance point of view, the for loop is preferable.
Nevertheless, I personally find the more functional style (of applying a filter) more elegant, easier to read and maintain. It would need some more adjustments -for example, to create a view on the original array so that not all 10k elements are being visited. I won't go too much in depth here as this is not the original question :)

You could use devtools methods such as console.time() in order to bechmark these approaches.
console.time('for-loop approach');
var el,ct=0;
for (var j=0;j<500;j++) {
el=arr[j];
if (el.a==1 && el.b<8 && el.c>2) ct++;
}
console.timeEnd('for-loop approach');
console.time('filter approach');
var ct=arr.filter(function(el,j){return j<500 && el.a==1 && el.b<8 && el.c>2}).length;
console.timeEnd('filter approach');

On looping through Arguments variable

So I'm learning how to code. Well, my name is Richard and I'm learning how to code on my own, with Javascript. While I have been putting some amount of work into this consistantly during a few months, only finally I have had the means to practice on an environment where code can actually be run (before this I would put vertical lines on a notebook as indentations and practice there), and in the book I'm using as a guide (which is very good by the way, or so I feel), I found an exercise which requires to build a function which makes an array taking parameters to start and finish the array as well as a step to count that can be obviated and treated as 1 by the function (done), and then a second function that can take the values in that array and sum them, then return the result (done as well). That one was a little bit tricky while I figured out how to work with the arguments variable, but then I started thinking on how I could improve this last function, and add more functionality to it. To both really.
The step I'm stuck on is that one. I'm trying to enhance both variables to go beyond working with ONE array at a time. Instead, I want the Range function to be able to take multiple different parameters (arrays of numbers or just numbers as values), transform them all into an array and then pass all these elements to Sum, and Sum to sum them all. But I can't. I thought I could just push the number values into the array that I'm going to return to Sum(), but it's not working. I can access and move around the elements of the array that I use to test the function, but the number values given as parameters are just ignored, no matter where I put them in Args. My function looks something like this.
function argsPasser () {
var argz = [];
for (i = 0 ; i < arguments.length ; i++) {
if ((typeof arguments[i]) != (typeof 5)) {
for (j = 0 ; j < arguments[i][length] ; j++) {
argz.push(arguments[i][j]); }
else
argz.push(arguments[argument]; }}
return argz; }
I don't know if I'm missing something in the way the control flow, or the arguments variable behaves, but this makes perfect sense to me and I don't understand why it's not doing what I want it to do. When i (index of the argument in arguments) is 0 and j (index of values within that argument) is 0, number values should be properly added to the array, no?
More than making this particular function work, I'm very interested in learning what I can do to manipulate the arguments variable and how I can make it be flexible when it comes to making functions. So even if the problem itself has no solution, learning more about this topic would be profit for me.
Thank you in advance.

In a loop, do any operations in the end-condition get evaluated in every iteration?

In the following code:
for (var i = 0; i < object.length; i++){
....
}
does the operation object.length get evaluated every time in the iteration?
It would make most sense that the language will evaluate this once and save the result. However, I was reading some code where someone evaluated the operation before the loop started and stored it in a variable that was used in the end-condition.
Do different languages handle this differently? Any specific info for Javascript?

It obviously depends on the language. For JavaScript, the spec (ECMAScript §12.6.3) requires it always be evaluated each time. As an optimization, a specific JavaScript runtime could skip one or more of the length calls, if it could prove that the result would not change.

Completely depends on the language and (possibly) on what's in the loop. The compiler/interpreter may or may not be able to determine with certainty that the "length" property won't be changed by something in the loop.
In Javascript, it's a safe bet that it'll be re-evaluated. A simple property reference like that probably isn't that bad, but something like a function call could be a performance problem. edit To clarify, by "a function call" I mean code of any form that computes the loop termination condition in any way expensive enough to make you feel bad about doing it on each iteration.
Thus (pardon my jQuery),
for (var i = 0; i < $('.foo').length; ++i) { /* ... */ }
would involve a traversal of the whole DOM on each iteration.

The condition has to be re-evaluated at each iteration of the loop because in theory the value could have changed inside the loop body.

A smart compiler could automatically optimize for this case, but performing static analysis to determine that the length will not change inside the loop is extremely difficult in JavaScript. For this reason, you can say that in most cases object.length will indeed be reevaluated in each iteration.
On the other hand, it's often simpler for the programmer to reason out that the length will certainly not change, and if you're really (I mean, really) worried about performance, you could pre-compute and store the length before the loop starts.

If order doesn't matter to you, iterate backwards. You don't need the messy temporary variable holding the length in this case. The start condition of the loop is only evaluated once (obviously, it'd be pointless re-evaluating it once the loop has already started!). Using an example from an early response:
for (var i = $('.foo').length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { /* ... */ }
I know I'm answering this long after it was asked, but it's still showing high in Google search results for related queries and none of the existing answers seem to suggest this alternative approach.

In some languages this depends on the level of optimization you have configured at build-time. I believe in C++, for example, marking a field as volatile will force re-evaluation. Check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_unwinding
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/12a04hfd.aspx

In Javascript it does get evaluated every time. You can get around it by setting a "max" variable in the first part of the loop:
for (var i=0, imax=object.length; i<imax; i++) {
// statements
}

Yes it gets calculated each iteration ..
why not test it ?
var loop = 5;
for (var i = 0; i< loop; i++)
{
alert(i + ' of ' + loop);
loop--;
}
live at http://jsfiddle.net/MSAdF/