Why JSLint report in code:
function cos(a) {
var b = 0;
if (a) {
b = 1;
}
else {
b = 2;
}
return b;
}
error:
Problem at line 6 character 5: Expected exactly one space between '}' and 'else'.
This error can be turned off by disabling Tolerate messy white space option of JSLint.
Or in other words -- why syntax:
} else { is better then
...
}
else {
...
Google also uses syntax with } else { form.
But I don't understand why. Google mentioned ''implicit semicolon insertion'', but in context of opening {, not closing one.
Can Javascript insert semicolon after closing } of if block even if next token is else instruction?
Sorry that my question is a bit chaotic -- I tried to think loud.
JSLint is based on Crockford's preferences (which I share in this case).
It's a matter of opinion which is "better".
(Although clearly his opinion is right ;)
It's not a matter of style. It's how ECMAScript works.
For better or for worse, it will automatically insert semicolons at the end of statements where it feels necessary.
JavaScript would interpret this:
function someFunc {
return
{
something: 'My Value'
};
}
As this:
function someFunc {
return;
{
something: 'My Value'
};
}
Which is certainly what you don't want.
If you always put the bracket on the same line as the if and if else statement, you won't run into a problem like this.
As with any coding language, the coding style chosen should be the one that minimizes potential risk the most.
Mozilla Developer Network also promotes same line bracketing: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/User:GavinSharp_JS_Style_Guidelines#Brackets
JSLint is being very picky here, just enforcing a style that you might not share.
Try JSHint instead:
The project originally started as an effort to make a more configurable version of JSLint—the one that doesn't enforce one particular coding style on its users [...]
JSLint is just being picky here. The guy who wrote it also baked in many stylistic suggestions in order to keep his own code more consistent.
As for semicolon insertion, you shouldn't need to worry here. Inserting a semicolon before the else clause would lead to a syntax error and automatic semicolon insertion only occurs in situations where the resulting code would still be syntactically valid.
If you want to read more on semicolon insertion, I recommend this nice reference
Basically if you insert semicolons everywhere you only need be careful about putting the argument to "return" or "throw" (or the label for "break" and "continue") on the same line.
And when you accidentally forget a semicolon, the only common cases that are likely to bite you are if you start the next line with an array literal (it might parsed as the subscript operator) or a parenthsised expression (it might be parsed as a function call)
Conclusion
Should you omit optional semicolons or not? The answer is a matter of
personal preference, but should be made on the basis of informed
choice rather than nebulous fears of unknown syntactical traps or
nonexistent browser bugs. If you remember the rules given here, you
are equipped to make your own choices, and to read any JavaScript
easily.
If you choose to omit semicolons where possible, my advice is to
insert them immediately before the opening parenthesis or square
bracket in any statement that begins with one of those tokens, or any
which begins with one of the arithmetic operator tokens "/", "+", or
"-" if you should happen to write such a statement.
Whether you omit semicolons or not, you must remember the restricted
productions (return, break, continue, throw, and the postfix increment
and decrement operators), and you should feel free to use linebreaks
everywhere else to improve the readability of your code.
By the way, I personally think that the } else { version is prettier. Stop insisting in your evil ways and joins us on the light side of the force :P
I have just finished reading a book titled Mastering JavaScript High Performance. I speak under correction here, but from what I can gather is that "white space" does in fact matter.
It has to do with the way the interpreter fetches the next function. By keeping white space to a minimum (i.e.) using a minifier when your code is ready for deployment, you actually speed up the process.
If the interpreter has to search through the white space to find the next statement this takes time. Perhaps you want to test this with a piece of code that runs a loop say 10,000 times with white space in it and then the same code minified.
The statement to put before the start of the loop would be console.time and finally console.timeEnd at the end of the loop. This will then tell you how many milliseconds the loop took to compute.
The JSLint error/warning is suggesting to alter code to
// naming convention winner? it's subjective
} else if{
b = 2;
}
from:
}
else if{
b = 2;
}
It prevents insert semicolons; considered more standard & conventional.
most people could agree a tab between the
}tabelse if{
is not the most popular method. Interesting how the opening bracket { is placed (space or not) obviously both ar subjected
Related
doing some JavaScript learning and playing around with the syntax. In JavaScript semicolons are optional. It is recommended to use them, but it seems the specification does not impose them in some cases.
In particular it is said that when there is no ambiguity, then it does not make a difference whether you use them or not.
I found this example (an exercise from a blog I googled), but no explanation. I think the semicolon should not make a difference here, but it does. I don't see an ambiguity here, why is it supposed to be different. I tried to play around with some examples, it really seems different. Can't wrap my head around that :-(
var y = x + f
(a+b).toString()
and
var y = x + f;
(a+b).toString();
Would be cool if some guru could shed light on this one.
The f followed by whitespace and a ( can be interpreted as a function call. Placing a semicolon will prevent this.
The ECMAScript Standard Specification mentions the rules of Automatic Semicolon Insertion in section 11.9.1, and the second rule described there is what we need to read:
When, as the Script or Module is parsed from left to right, the end of the input stream of tokens is encountered and the parser is unable to parse the input token stream as a single complete ECMAScript Script or Module, then a semicolon is automatically inserted at the end of the input stream. emphasis mine
So there we go. In over-simplified layman language, the semi-colon is inserted if continuation of parsing doesn't give us valid code.
In your case, if we continue parsing the code, we do get valid ECMAScript code as follows: (since JavaScript isn't white-space sensitive)
var y = x + f(a+b)...
Thus, a semicolon will not be inserted.
Exceptions to this are described in the third rule (like return and yield keyword usage), but they don't apply in your code.
Whitespace in JavaScript (including line breaks) are not syntaxical. So in the above, with a little bit of rearranging the difference should become clear.
Is this:
var y = x + f(a+b).toString()
The same as this:
var y = x + f;
(a+b).toString();
Nope. In the first example, f being called as though it is a function with the variable a+b being passes as a parameter of that function.
NOTE
There is one case I'm aware of where the above isn't exactly true; return statements.
A linebreak character does act in a syntaxical way for return statements, so this:
return {
tomatoes: 'are yummy'
}
would return an object with the property tomatoes, whereas this:
return
{
tomatoes: 'are yummy'
}
would return undefined
When passing the following code to jshint, it considers the linebreak in the if-condition to be bad, saying "Bad line breaking before '&&'."
if (1 == 1
&& true) {
console.log("hello world");
}
However, having the linebreak after '&&' is fine.
if (1 == 1 &&
true) {
console.log("hello world");
}
Why does jshint consider the first to be wrong and the latter to be right?
According to a discussion on GitHub:
This may cause problems like semi colon insertion and old javascript parsers breaking. Please check a large range of browsers.
This check can be disabled with laxbreak:true.
The laxbreak option is on its way to deprecation, but I'm not sure if the default jshint behavior will change.
The creator of JSHint probably doesn't like this kind of wrapping and prefers the && in the first line which seems to be much more common:
The primary reasoning behind this convention is that the operator makes it clear that the line is a continuation of the preceding line. With the operator before the line break, this is much harder to spot.
Actually there's an issue about exactly what you are asking about on Github: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/557
I'm making a library, and I often inspect the result of Closure Compiler's output to see how it's doing things (I do have unit tests, but I still like to see the compiled code for hints of how it could compress better).
So, I found this very weird piece of code, which I never seen before.
variable : {
some();
code()
}
Note: this is not an object literal! Also, there is no ? anywhere that would make it a ?: conditional.
That code is in a regular function block (an IIFE).
variable, in this case, is an undefined variable. There's no code making it true, false, or whatever, and just to make sure, I put a console.log in there and indeed, I get a ReferenceError.
Please do note that I test my code in IE8 too, so this isn't just in modern browsers. It seems to be standard, plain old javascript.
So let's experiment with it. Firing up Chrome's console, I get this:
undeclaredVariable:{console.log('does this get logged?')} // yes it does.
trueValue:{console.log('what about this?')} // same thing.
falseValue:{console.log('and this?')} // same thing.
but then...
(true):{console.log('does this work too?')} // SyntaxError: Unexpected token :
...and...
so?{console.log('is this a conditional?')}:{alert(123)} // Unexpected token .
So what does it do?
thisThing:{console.log('is used to declare a variable?')}
thisThing // ReferenceError: thisThing is not defined
Please, I'd love it if someone could explain to me what this code is meant to do, or at least what it does.
It is a label
Provides a statement with an identifier that you can refer to using a
break or continue statement.
For example, you can use a label to identify a loop, and then use the
break or continue statements to indicate whether a program should
interrupt the loop or continue its execution.
Another common place you see it is when people stick the wonderful and useless javascript: on event handlers.
This is a label (the bit ending with a colon) followed by a block (the code surrounded by the curly brackets).
Blocks usually follow control statements, like if(...) { /*block*/ }, but they can also simply stand on their own, as in your example.
Labels allow jumping up several loops at a time with a continue or break; see the linked MDN page for several examples, such as:
var itemsPassed = 0;
var i, j;
top:
for (i = 0; i < items.length; i++){
for (j = 0; j < tests.length; j++)
if (!tests[j].pass(items[i]))
continue top;
itemsPassed++;
}
Here, top: is a label that code inside the inner loop can jump to, in order to escape to the outer loop.
For the sake of anyone who doesn't know what JSON is, and sees a colon in what might actually be an object, and is trying to figure out what it is, and finds this discussion, a colon is also used in JSON. There is a practice of embedding functions in a JSON object. Which might be confusing (As it was to me) for anyone who happens to see this for the first time. (Everyone isn't born with the knowledge of JSON and JavaScript programmed into their brains.) So if you find yourself at this discussion, and you think that every time you see a colon in JavaScript, that it's a label, it might not be. It might be that it's a colon after a label, OR it might be part of JSON. In fact, a colon in JSON being shown as a string, is a lot more common than a label. JSON in the form of an object, will be displayed as [object Object], with all the content hidden. So, unless the JSON is in the form of a string, and you display an object to the console (console.log(object)) all you will see is [object Object]. It is common practice to write JavaScript code, wrapped in an object. In that case you will see the JSON in the form of code. That's when you'll ask yourself, "What is this? and what is that colon for?" Then you'll find yourself at this discussion, and be told that it's a label, when it's really part of JSON. The topic of this discussion is worded: "Please explain this usage of a colon in javascript", and then the "correct answer" is marked as having to do with a label. The correct answer is that a colon can be used in more than one way. So, if you don't know what JSON is, or think you know (like I did, but didn't really understand) read about it here:
JSON.org
That is just a label.
you can use continue [label name] (or break) in a loop to go to a label.
More explanations of what they are can be seen throughout the interwebs.
it is used for labeling an statement in jsvascript.check more detail here.
the labeled statement can be used with break and continue later.
As I'm sure most of the JavaScripters out there are aware, there's a new, Christmas-themed js1k. I'm planning on entering this time, but I have no experience producing such minified code. Does anyone know any good resources for this kind of thing?
Google Closure Compiler is a good javascript minifier.
There is a good online tool for quick use, or you can download the tool and run it as part of a web site build process.
Edit: Added a non-exhaustive list of tricks that you can use to minify JavaScript extremely, before using a minifier:
Shorten long variable names
Use shortened references to built in variables like d=document;w=window.
Set Interval
The setInterval function can take either a function or a string. Pass in a string to reduce the number of characters used: setInterval('a--;b++',10). Note that passing in a string forces an eval invokation so it will be slower than passing in a function.
Reduce Mathematical Calculations
Example a=b+b+b can be reduced to a=3*b.
Use Scientific Notation
10000 can be expressed in scientific notation as 1E4 saving 2 bytes.
Drop leading Zeroes
0.2 = .2 saves a byte
Ternery Operator
if (a > b) {
result = x;
}
else {
result = y;
}
can be expressed as result=a>b?x:y
Drop Braces
Braces are only required for blocks of more than one statement.
Operator Precedence
Rely on operator precedence rather than adding unneeded brackets which aid code readability.
Shorten Variable Assignment
Rather than function x(){a=1,b=2;...}() pass values into the function, function x(a,b){...}(1,2)
Think outside the box
Don't automatically reach for standard ways of doing things. Rather than using d.getElementById('p') to get a reference to a DOM element, could you use b.children[4] where d=document;b=body.
Original source for above list of tricks:
http://thingsinjars.com/post/293/the-quest-for-extreme-javascript-minification/
Spolto is right.
Any code minifier won't do the trick alone. You need to first optimize your code and then make some dirty manual tweaks.
In addition to Spolto's list of tricks I want to encourage the use of logical operators instead of the classical if else syntax. ex:
The following code
if(condition){
exp1;
}else{
exp2;
}
is somewhat equivalent to
condition&&exp1||exp2;
Another thing to consider might be multiple variable declaration :
var a = 1;var b = 2;var c = 1;
can be rewritten as :
var a=c=1,b=2;
Spolto is also right about the braces. You should drop them. But in addition, you should know that they can be dropped even for blocks of more expressions by writing the expressions delimited by a comma(with a leading ; of course) :
if(condition){
exp1;
exp2;
exp3;
}else{
exp4;
exp5;
}
Can be rewritten as :
if(condition)exp1,exp2,exp3;
else exp4,exp5;
Although it's not much (it saves you only 1 character/block for those who are counting), it might come in handy. (By the way, the latest Google Closure Compiler does this trick too).
Another trick worth mentioning is the controversial with functionality.
If you care more about the size, then you should use this because it might reduce code size.
For example, let's consider this object method:
object.method=function(){
this.a=this.b;
this.c++;
this.d(this.e);
}
This can be rewritten as :
object.method=function(){
with(this){
a=b;
c++;
d(e);
}
}
which is in most cases signifficantly smaller.
Something that most code packers & minifiers do not do is replacing large repeating tokens in the code with smaller ones. This is a nasty hack that also requires the use of eval, but since we're in it for the space, I don't think that should be a problem. Let's say you have this code :
a=function(){/*code here*/};
b=function(){/*code here*/};
c=function(){/*code here*/};
/*...*/
z=function(){/*code here*/};
This code has many "function" keywords repeating. What if you could replace them with a single(unused) character and then evaluate the code?
Here's how I would do it :
eval('a=F(){/*codehere*/};b=F(){/*codehere*/};c=F(){/*codehere*/};/*...*/z=F(){/*codehere*/};'.replace(/function/g,'F'));
Of course the replaced token(s) can be anything since our code is reduced to an evaluated string (ex: we could've replaced =function(){ with F, thus saving even more characters).
Note that this technique must be used with caution, because you can easily screw up your code with multiple text replacements; moreover, you should use it only in cases where it helps (ex: if you only have 4 function tokens, replacing them with a smaller token and then evaluating the code might actually increase the code length :
var a = "eval(''.replace(/function/g,'F'))".length,
b = ('function'.length-'F'.length)*4;
alert("you should" + (a<b?"":" NOT") + " use this technique!");
In the following link you'll find surprisingly good tricks to minify js code for this competition:
http://www.claudiocc.com/javascript-golfing/
One example: (extracted from section Short-circuit operators):
if (p) p=q; // before
p=p&&q; // after
if (!p) p=q; // before
p=p||q; // after
Or the more essoteric Canvas context hash trick:
// before
a.beginPath
a.fillRect
a.lineTo
a.stroke
a.transform
a.arc
// after
for(Z in a)a[Z[0]+(Z[6]||Z[2])]=a[Z];
a.ba
a.fc
a.ln
a.sr
a.to
a.ac
And here is another resource link with amazingly good tricks: https://github.com/jed/140bytes/wiki/Byte-saving-techniques
First off all, just throwing your code into a minifier won't help you that much. You need to have the extreme small file size in mind when you write the code. So in part, you need to learn all the tricks yourself.
Also, when it comes to minifiers, UglifyJS is the new shooting star here, its output is smaller than GCC's and it's way faster too. And since it's written in pure JavaScript it should be trivial for you to find out what all the tricks are that it applies.
But in the end it all comes down to whether you can find an intelligent, small solution for something that's awsome.
Also:
Dean Edwards Packer
http://dean.edwards.name/packer/
Uglify JS
http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/uglifyjs
A friend wrote jscrush packer for js1k.
Keep in mind to keep as much code self-similar as possible.
My workflow for extreme packing is: closure (pretty print) -> hand optimizations, function similarity, other code similarity -> closure (whitespace only) -> jscrush.
This packs away about 25% of the data.
There's also packify, but I haven't tested that myself.
This is the only online version of #cowboy's packer script:
http://iwantaneff.in/packer/
Very handy for packing / minifying JS
This is my JavaScript (much stripped down):
function addContent() {
var content = [];
content.append(
makeVal({
value : 1
})
); // Generates lint message
}
Running a lint program over this, I get the message
unexpected end of line; it is ambiguous whether these lines are part of the same statement
on line 7. If I concatenate lines 6 and 7 the message goes away.
Can anyone explain where this ambiguity is? It seems to me that the parenthesis on line 7 is unambiguously closing the call to append().
It looks that way to me, too. Sounds like a bug in the lint program you're using.
You can understand why it would wonder, because the call to makeVal fits the profile of code that's relying on semicolon insertion — unless you look correctly at the wider context and realize it's within argument list for the append call. Seems to me the lint program is not actually parsing the language, just looking for patterns, which is going to mean it's going to have both false positives and false negatives.