Develop Reference

WeakSet: garbage collection doesn't work? [duplicate]

The WeakSet is supposed to store elements by weak reference. That is, if an object is not referenced by anything else, it should be cleaned from the WeakSet.
I have written the following test:
var weakset = new WeakSet(),
numbers = [1, 2, 3];
weakset.add(numbers);
weakset.add({name: "Charlie"});
console.log(weakset);
numbers = undefined;
console.log(weakset);
Even though my [1, 2, 3] array is not referenced by anything, it's not being removed from the WeakSet. The console prints:
WeakSet {[1, 2, 3], Object {name: "Charlie"}}
WeakSet {[1, 2, 3], Object {name: "Charlie"}}
Why is that?
Plus, I have one more question. What is the point of adding objects to WeakSets directly, like this:
weakset.add({name: "Charlie"});
Are those Traceur's glitches or am I missing something?
And finally, what is the practical use of WeakSet if we cannot even iterate through it nor get the current size?

it's not being removed from the WeakSet. Why is that?
Most likely because the garbage collector has not yet run. However, you say you are using Traceur, so it just might be that they're not properly supported. I wonder how the console can show the contents of a WeakSet anyway.
What is the point of adding objects to WeakSets directly?
There is absolutely no point of adding object literals to WeakSets.
What is the practical use of WeakSet if we cannot even iterate through it nor get the current size?
All you can get is one bit of information: Is the object (or generically, value) contained in the set?
This can be useful in situations where you want to "tag" objects without actually mutating them (setting a property on them). Lots of algorithms contain some sort of "if x was already seen" condition (a JSON.stringify cycle detection might be a good example), and when you work with user-provided values the use of a Set/WeakSet would be advisable. The advantage of a WeakSet here is that its contents can be garbage-collected while your algorithm is still running, so it helps to reduce memory consumption (or even prevents leaks) when you are dealing with lots of data that is lazily (possibly even asynchronously) produced.

This is a really hard question. To be completely honest I had no idea in the context of JavaScript so I asked in esdiscuss and got a convincing answer from Domenic.
WeakSets are useful for security and validation reasons. If you want to be able to isolate a piece of JavaScript. They allow you to tag an object to indicate it belongs to a special set of object.
Let's say I have a class ApiRequest:
class ApiRequest {
constructor() {
// bring object to a consistent state, use platform code you have no direct access to
}
makeRequest() {
// do work
}
}
Now, I'm writing a JavaScript platform - my platform allows you to run JavaScript to make calls - to make those calls you need a ApiRequest - I only want you to make ApiRequests with the objects I give you so you can't bypass any constraints I have in place.
However, at the moment nothing is stopping you from doing:
ApiRequest.prototype.makeRequest.call(null, args); // make request as function
Object.create(ApiRequest.prototype).makeRequest(); // no initialization
function Foo(){}; Foo.prototype = ApiRequest.prototype; new Foo().makeRequest(); // no super
And so on, note that you can't keep a normal list or array of ApiRequest objects since that would prevent them from being garbage collected. Other than a closure, anything can be achieved with public methods like Object.getOwnPropertyNames or Object.getOwnSymbols. So you one up me and do:
const requests = new WeakSet();
class ApiRequest {
constructor() {
requests.add(this);
}
makeRequest() {
if(!request.has(this)) throw new Error("Invalid access");
// do work
}
}
Now, no matter what I do - I must hold a valid ApiRequest object to call the makeRequest method on it. This is impossible without a WeakMap/WeakSet.
So in short - WeakMaps are useful for writing platforms in JavaScript. Normally this sort of validation is done on the C++ side but adding these features will enable moving and making things in JavaScript.
(Of course, everything a WeakSet does a WeakMap that maps values to true can also do, but that's true for any map/set construct)
(Like Bergi's answer suggests, there is never a reason to add an object literal directly to a WeakMap or a WeakSet)

By definition, WeakSet has only three key functionalities
Weakly link an object into the set
Remove a link to an object from the set
Check if an object has already been linked to the set
Sounds more pretty familiar?
In some application, developers may need to implement a quick way to iterate through a series of data which is polluted by lots and lots of redundancy but you want to pick only ones which have not been processed before (unique). WeakSet could help you. See an example below:
var processedBag = new WeakSet();
var nextObject = getNext();
while (nextObject !== null){
// Check if already processed this similar object?
if (!processedBag.has(nextObject)){
// If not, process it and memorize
process(nextObject);
processedBag.add(nextObject);
}
nextObject = getNext();
}
One of the best data structure for application above is Bloom filter which is very good for a massive data size. However, you can apply the use of WeakSet for this purpose as well.

A "weak" set or map is useful when you need to keep an arbitrary collection of things but you don't want their presence in the collection from preventing those things from being garbage-collected if memory gets tight. (If garbage collection does occur, the "reaped" objects will silently disappear from the collection, so you can actually tell if they're gone.)
They are excellent, for example, for use as a look-aside cache: "have I already retrieved this record, recently?" Each time you retrieve something, put it into the map, knowing that the JavaScript garbage collector will be the one responsible for "trimming the list" for you, and that it will automatically do so in response to prevailing memory conditions (which you can't reasonably anticipate).
The only drawback is that these types are not "enumerable." You can't iterate over a list of entries – probably because this would likely "touch" those entries and so defeat the purpose. But, that's a small price to pay (and you could, if need be, "code around it").

WeakSet is a simplification of WeakMap for where your value is always going to be boolean true. It allows you to tag JavaScript objects so to only do something with them once or to maintain their state in respect to a certain process. In theory as it doesn't need to hold a value it should use a little less memory and perform slightly faster than WeakMap.
var [touch, untouch] = (() => {
var seen = new WeakSet();
return [
value => seen.has(value)) || (seen.add(value), !1),
value => !seen.has(value) || (seen.delete(value), !1)
];
})();
function convert(object) {
if(touch(object)) return;
extend(object, yunoprototype); // Made up.
};
function unconvert(object) {
if(untouch(object)) return;
del_props(object, Object.keys(yunoprototype)); // Never do this IRL.
};

Your console was probably incorrectly showing the contents due to the fact that the garbage collection did not take place yet. Therefore since the object wasn't garbage collected it would show the object still in weakset.
If you really want to see if a weakset still has a reference to a certain object then use the WeakSet.prototype.has() method. This method, as the name implies returns a boolean indicating wether the object still exists in the weakset.
Example:
var weakset = new WeakSet(),
numbers = [1, 2, 3];
weakset.add(numbers);
weakset.add({name: "Charlie"});
console.log(weakset.has(numbers));
numbers = undefined;
console.log(weakset.has(numbers));

Let me answer the first part, and try to avoid confusing you further.
The garbage collection of dereferenced objects is not observable! It would be a paradox, because you need an object reference to check if it exists in a map. But don't trust me on this, trust Kyle Simpson:
https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/1st-ed/es6%20%26%20beyond/ch5.md#weakmaps
The problem with a lot of explanations I see here, is that they re-reference a variable to another object, or assign it a primitive value, and then check if the WeakMap contains that object or value as a key. Of course it doesn't! It never had that object/value as a key!
So the final piece to this puzzle: why does inspecting the WeakMap in a console still show all those objects there, even after you've removed all of your references to those objects? Because the console itself keeps persistent references to those Objects, for the purpose of being able to list all the keys in the WeakMap, because that is something that the WeakMap itself cannot do.

While I'm searching about use cases of Weakset I found these points:
"The WeakSet is weak, meaning references to objects in a WeakSet are held weakly.
If no other references to an object stored in the WeakSet exist, those objects can be garbage collected."
##################################
They are black boxes: we only get any data out of a WeakSet if we have both the WeakSet and a value.
##################################
Use Cases:
1 - to avoid bugs
2 - it can be very useful in general to avoid any object to be visited/setup twice
Refrence: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/actual-weakset-use-cases
3 - The contents of a WeakSet can be garbage collected.
4 - Possibility of lowering memory utilization.
Refrence: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-the-use-of-a-weakset-object-in-javascript/
##################################
Example on Weakset: https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ch_weaksets.html
I Advice you to learn more about weak concept in JS: https://blog.logrocket.com/weakmap-weakset-understanding-javascript-weak-references/

Best (most performant) way to declare (class) properties with unknown values in v8

So I learned a bit about the hidden class concept in v8. It is said that you should declare all properties in the constructor (if using prototype based "pseudo classes") and that you should not delete them or add new ones outside of the constructor. So far, so good.
1) But what about properties where you know the type (that you also shouldn't change) but not the (initial) value?
For example, is it sufficient to do something like this:
var Foo = function () {
this.myString;
this.myNumber;
}
... and assign concrete values later on, or would it be better to assign a "bogus" value upfront, like this:
var Foo = function () {
this.myString = "";
this.myNumber = 0;
}
2) Another thing is with objects. Sometimes I just know that an object wont have a fixed structure, but I want to use it as a hash map. Is there any (non verbose) way to tell the compiler I want to use it this way, so that it isn't optimized (and deopted later on)?
Update
Thanks for your input! So after reading your comments (and more on the internet) I consider these points as "best practices":
Do define all properties of a class in the constructor (also applies for defining simple objects)
You have to assign something to these properties, even if thats just null or undefined - just stating this.myString; is apparently not enough
Because you have to assign something anyways I think assigning a "bogus" value in case you can't assign the final value immediatly cannot hurt, so that the compiler does "know" ASAP what type you want to use. So, for example this.myString = "";
In case of objects, do assign the whole structure if you know it beforehand, and again assign dummy values to it's properties if you don't know them immediatly. Otherwise, for example when intending to use the Object as a hashmap, just do: this.myObject = {};. Think its not worth indicating to the compiler that this should be a hashmap. If you really want to do this, I found a trick that assigns a dummy property to this object and deletes it immediatly afterwards. But I won't do this.
As for smaller Arrays it's apparently recommended (reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJPdhx5zTaw&feature=youtu.be&t=25m40s) to preallocate them especially if you know the final size, so for example: this.myArray = new Array(4);
Don't delete properties later on! Just null them if needed
Don't change types after assigning! This will add another hidden class and hurt performance. I think thats best practice anyways. The only case where I have different types is for certain function arguments anyways. In that case I usually convert them to the same target type.
Same applies if you keep adding additional properties later on.
That being said, I also think doing this will lean to cleaner and more organized code, and also helps with documenting.
Yeah, so one little thing I am unsure remains: What if I define properties in a function (for example a kind of configure() method) called within the constructor?

Re 1): Just reading properties, like in your first snippet, does not do anything to the object. You need to assign them to create the properties.
But for object properties it doesn't actually matter much what values you initialise them with, as long as you do initialise them. Even undefined should be fine.
The concrete values are much more relevant for arrays, where you want to make sure to create them with the right elements (and without any holes!) because the VM tries to keep them homogeneous. In particular, never use the Array constructor, because that creates just holes.
Re 2): There are ways to trick the VM into using a dictionary representation, but they depend on VM and version and aren't really reliable. In general, it is best to avoid using objects as maps altogether. Since ES6, there is a proper Map class.

What is the cost to convert a javascript variable to jQuery Object?

Sometimes I see in Javascript functions that, if the conversion of a variable to jQuery is used repeatedly, then it can be assigned to a local variable first:
$variable = $(variable);
Is this necessary, and how much is the cost of conversion?

No matter what, storing the object is faster than having to re-instantiate a jQuery object every time you want to use jQuery methods on it...even if it's miniscule for caching $(this) or $(anObject).
A term used to describe this method of "store now, use later" is "caching". The reason it's often called "caching" is because caching refers to storing a reference to something once and using that, without going back out to grab the same thing again, later (very non-technical, non-100% accurate description).
The major point is dealing with selectors. jQuery has to query the DOM every time, which is the expensive part. Generating the object and storing references isn't that expensive compared to DOM manipulation (and jQuery processing your selection in the first place).
If you're simply creating a jQuery object out of an object reference, it's not nearly as devastating, as the processing that takes place is the creation of the jQuery object...so it's really limited to whatever jQuery does for that. It's still good practice and still prevents some unnecessary processing. For example, this:
var element = document.getElementById("div_id");
$(element).someMethod();
// Later:
$(element).someOtherMethod();
is slightly inefficient, since a new jQuery object is created each time. It could easily be condensed to store a reference to a single jQuery object in a variable, and reference that.
The one caveat I can think of is that it isn't a live list of elements (if selecting DOM elements). For example, you may want to cache all elements with the class testing-class, like so:
var myelements = $(".testing-class");
But if another element is added to the DOM with the testing-class class, myelements will not be reflected. It will have the same, previous list. So in that case, the DOM will obviously need to be re-queried and update myelements.
To me, the best practice for caching is within a scope....not the entire page. If you are running a function, and it selects some elements, cache it at the beginning, and use that. But don't cache it globally and use it throughout your page; cache it for an execution cycle.
For example, I would do this:
function someFunc() {
var elements = $(".class-stuff");
// Use `elements` here
// code
// Use `elements` here
someOtherFunc(elements);
}
function someOtherFunc(el) {
// Use `el` here
}
someFunc();
// Some time later:
someFunc();
but I wouldn't do this:
var elements = $(".class-stuff");
function someFunc() {
// Use `elements`
}
function someOtherFunc() {
// Use `elements`
}
someFunc();
someOtherFunc();
// Some time later
someOtherFunc();

It depends on what the variable is. If the original variable is just a single DOM element then it's not particularly expensive - the DOM traversal has already been done so all you're doing is wrapping that element in the jQuery pseudo-array and attaching the prototype.
However if the original variable is a selector, then you absolutely should cache the result to avoid repeated conversions from DOM -> element list.
In any event, it's good practise not to repeat yourself, so caching $(variable) is just good code hygiene.

If the $(variable) is being called anyway this assignment has basically no cost -- this is only storing a reference to the object in memory.
Purists might point out that because the jQuery object is now stored it can't be garbage collected, and this is true. So I guess if you had lots of these it could cause a memory issue, but in itself it has no cost to speak of.
The reason it is done is because there is a cost associated with creating the object, that is the $(variable) part. That if done many times could be expensive. Store a reference to the object means only one needs to be created.
Another important point: The following statement
var $variable = $(variable);
could act different if it is done in a calling context of a closure. That is if there is a function defined in the scope of the var statement that variable will "stick around" for the function to use. This could have the same effects as described above (no gc and pointer memory) with the addition of a longer lifetime. (Because it will stay as long as the function has potential to be called.)

Javascript object encapsulation that tracks changes

Is it possible to create an object container where changes can be tracked
Said object is a complex nested object of data. (compliant with JSON).
The wrapper allows you to get the object, and save changes, without specifically stating what the changes are
Does there exist a design pattern for this kind of encapsulation
Deep cloning is not an option since I'm trying to write a wrapper like this to avoid doing just that.
The solution of serialization should only be considered if there are no other solutions.
An example of use would be
var foo = state.get();
// change state
state.update(); // or state.save();
client.tell(state.recentChange());
A jsfiddle snippet might help : http://jsfiddle.net/Raynos/kzKEp/
It seems like implementing an internal hash to keep track of changes is the best option.
[Edit]
To clarify this is actaully done on node.js on the server. The only thing that changes is that the solution can be specific to the V8 implementation.

Stripping away the javascript aspect of this problem, there are only three ways to know if something has changed:
Keep a copy or representation to compare with.
Observe the change itself happening in-transit.
Be notified of the change.
Now take these concepts back to javascript, and you have the following patterns:
Copy: either a deep clone, full serialization, or a hash.
Observe: force the use of a setter, or tap into the javascript engine (not very applicable)
Notify: modifying the code that makes the changes to publish events (again, not very applicable).
Seeing as you've ruled out a deep clone and the use of setters, I think your only option is some form of serialisation... see a hash implementation here.

You'll have to wrap all your nested objects with a class that reports you when something changes. The thing is, if you put an observer only in the first level object, you'll only receive notifications for the properties contained in this object.
For example, imagine you have this object:
var obj = new WrappedObject({
property1: {
property1a: "foo",
property1b: 20,
}
})
If you don't wrap the object contained in porperty1, you'll only receive a "get" event for property1, and just that, because when someone runs obj.property1.property1a = "bar" the only interaction that you'll have with obj, will be when it asks for the reference of the object contained in property1, and the modification will happen in an unobserved object.
The best approach I can imagine, is iterating over all the properties when you wrap the first object, and constructing recursively a wrapper object for every typeOf(property) == "Object".
I hope my understanding of your question was right. Sorry if not! It's my first answer here :$.

There's something called reactive programming that kind of resembles what you ask about, but its more involved and would probably be overkill.
It seems like you would like to keep a history of values, correct? This shouldn't be too hard as long as you restrit changes to a setter function. Of course, this is more difficult in javascript than it is in some other languages. Real private fields demand some clever use of closures.
Assuming you can do all of that, just write something like this into the setter.
function setVal(x)
{
history.push(value);
value = x;
}

You can use the solution that processing.js uses.
Write the script that accesses the wrapped object normally...
var foo = state.get();
foo.bar = "baz";
state.update();
client.tell(state.recentChange());
...but in the browser (or on the server if loading speed is important) before it runs, parse the code and convert it to this,
var foo = state.get();
state.set(foo, "bar", "baz");
state.update();
client.tell(state.recentChange());
This could also be used to do other useful things, like operator overloading:
// Before conversion
var a=new Vector(), b=new Vector();
return a + b * 3;
// After conversion
var a=new Vector(), b=new Vector();
return Vector.add(a,Vector.multiply(b,3));

It would appear that node-proxy implements a way of doing this by wrapping a proxy around the entire object. I'll look into more detail as to how it works.
https://github.com/samshull/node-proxy

When is an object in Javascript constructed?

Consider the following Javascript function (1):
function setData(domElement) {
domElement.myDataProperty = {
'suppose': 'this',
'object': 'is',
'static': 'and',
'pretty': 'big'
};
};
Now what I don't like about this function is that the exact same object is created every time the function is called. Since the object does not change I would rather create it just once. So we could make the following adjustments (2):
var dataObject = {
'suppose': 'this',
'object': 'is',
'static': 'and',
'pretty': 'big'
};
function setData(domElement) {
domElement.myDataProperty = dataObject;
};
Now the object is created once when the script is loaded and stored in dataObject. But let's assume that setData is called only occasionally -- most of the times that the script is loaded the function is not used. What I don't like about this function in that case is that the object is always created and held in memory, including many occasions in which it will never be used. I figured you could do something like this to strike the ideal balance (3):
var dataObject;
function setData(domElement) {
if (!dataObject) {
dataObject = {
'suppose': 'this',
'object': 'is',
'static': 'and',
'pretty': 'big'
};
}
domElement.myDataProperty = dataObject;
};
Would that make sense? I figure it depends on when the interpreter decides to create an object. Does it really wait until it passes the !dataObject condition, or does it enter the function, tries to be smart and decides to construct it in advance? Perhaps different Javascript engines have different policies with regard to this?
Then of course there is the question of whether these optimizations will ever matter in practice. Obviously this depends on factors like the size of the object, the speed of the engine, the amount of resources available, etc.. But in general, which one would you say is the more significant optimization: from (1) to (2) or from (2) to (3)?

The answer is, you're not supposed to know. The examples you showed have very little difference between them. The only way you'd ever reasonably worry about this is if you had actual evidence that one way or another was noticably harming performance or memory usage on a particular interpreter. Until then, it's the interpreter's job to worry about that stuff for you.
That said, if you really want to know... Try it and find out. call the different versions 1,000,000 times and see what difference it makes.
Make a giant version of the object and see if that makes a dent. Watch task manager. Try different browsers. Report back your results. It's a much better way to find out than just asking a bunch of jerks on the internet what they guess might be the case.
just keep in mind that object has to be in memory anyway, regardless ... as source text

A new object must be created -- it cannot not be, partially because the spec requires it, but mostly because alternative behaviour would be counter intuitive, take:
function f() {
return {a : "b", c: "d"};
}
o=f();
alert([o.c, o.e]); // Alerts "b,"
delete o.c;
o.e="f";
o=f();
alert([o.c, o.e]); // If the object was only created once this would produce ",f"
Do you really expect a new object expression to not actually produce the object you're asking for? Because that's what you seem to want.
Conceivably you just want to do:
var myFunction = (function(){
var object = {a: "b", c: "d"};
return function() { return object; }
})();
Which would get the effect you want, although you would have to realise that the object you're returning is a completely mutable object that can be changed, and everyone would be sharing that same mutating instance.

First, I'd implement it in situation #2 and load it once immediately after the page is loaded.
If there was a problem with page speed, I would measure the time taken for specific tasks within the page.
If it was very expensive to create the object (relatively speaking), then I would move to situation #3.
There's no point in adding the 'if' statement if it really doesn't buy you anything... and in this case, creating a simple/big object is no sweat off your CPU's back. Without measurements, you're not optimizing - you're just shooting blind.
It's actually a fairly common method of initializing things that I've personally used in C++ and Java.

First, this optimization will never matter in practice.
Second, the last function is exactly as good as the first function. Well, almost. In the first I suppose you're at the mercy of the garbage collector, which should destroy the old object when you reassign domElement.myDataProperty. Still, without knowing exactly how the garbage collector works on your target platform (and it can be very different across browsers), you can't be sure you're saving any work at all really.

Try all three of them in a couple of browsers and find out which is faster.