I have to use atleast 2 setTimeouts and 1 setInterval. Does this have any dependency on the browser or javascript engine being used?
tl;dr: Don't worry about the cost of timers until you're creating 100K's of them.
I just did a quick test of timer performance by creating this test file (creates 100K timers over and over):
<script>
var n = 0; // Counter used to verify all timers fire
function makeTimers() {
var start = Date.now();
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++, n++) {
setTimeout(hello, 5000);
}
console.log('Timers made in', Date.now() - start, 'msecs');
}
function hello() {
if (--n == 0) {
console.log('All timers fired');
makeTimers(); // Do it again!
}
}
setTimeout(makeTimers, 10000); // Wait a bit before starting test
</script>
I opened this file in Google Chrome (v54) on my circa ~2014 Macbook Pro, and went to the Timeline tab in Developer Tools and recorded the memory profile as the page loaded and ran thru 3-4 cycles of the test.
Observations
The timer creation loop takes 200ms. The page heap size starts at 3.5MB pre-test, and levels out at 3.9MB.
Conclusion
Each timer takes ~.002 msecs to set up, and adds about 35 bytes to the JS heap.
On a page you can have as many setTimeouts/setIntervals running at once as you wish, however in order to control each individually you will need to assign them to a variable.
var interval_1 = setInterval("callFunc1();",2000);
var interval_2 = setInterval("callFunc2();",1000);
clearInterval(interval_1);
The same code above applies to setTimeout, simply replacing the wording.
As Kevin has stated, JavaScript is indeed single threaded, so while you can have multiple timers ticking at once, only one can fire at any one time - i.e. if you have one that fires a function which 'halts' in execution, for example with an alert box, then that JS must be 'resumed' before another can trigger I believe.
One further example is given below. While the markup is not valid, it shows how timeouts work.
<html>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
function addThing(){
var newEle = document.createElement("div");
newEle.innerHTML = "Timer1 Tick";
document.body.appendChild(newEle);
}
var t1= setInterval("addThing();",1000);
var t2 = setInterval("alert('moo');",2000);
</script>
</body>
</html>
You can use as many as you want. Just remember that JavaScript is single threaded, so none of them can execute in parallel.
var interval_1 = setInterval("callFunc1();",2000); calls eval() which is evil so it's BAD.
Use this instead var interval_1 = setInterval(callFunc1,2000);
And for the question, you may use as many as you want but if all have the same interval between two actions, you better do it this way
var interval = setInterval(function() {
// function1
fct1();
// function2
fct2();
},2000);
Related
Say I have 20 rows of JS code and I want the interpreter to execute only half of the code (<11 rows), then stop, without functions and returns, or without commenting the rest of the code (I already tried a return, see in advance).
A location.reload(true); in row 10 is a close solution but I'm looking for a client side stop.
My question
Is there like a stop command (or functionality) in JavaScript, that asks the interpreter to stop and behave as if no code ran so far?
Why I ask
The background for this question is a problem I have calling a function in more than one keydown event.
Given the keydown event is triggered only once, I consider sending the interpreter back to the start after the keydown event was triggered disposably, and without refreshing the page (Sorry if it seems absurd, I'm new to JS and failed finding the source of the bug).
Of course, the above question is different than the question "why does the keydown event triggered only once", which I already asked here - here's a link for context.
Preventing an XY problem
On one hand, I want to make sure there is no XY problem. On the other hand, I am not allowed to copywrite the previous question to this session hence linked to it above.
Either way, I would be glad to know if what I just described (client side stop of a JS interpreter) is even possible in the current release of the language.
Note: I decided to carefully rewrite the question after some comments earlier today (there were no answers) and did my best ensuring the question is informative and communal.
There is no stop command, but I experienced the need of it before when there was a long-running client-side operation.
The solution:
1) Divide the problem into small packets
2) Make sure you are able to make your function work only for activeMilliseconds milliseconds:
function doStuff(packets, currentIndex, activeMilliseconds) {
var start = new Date(); //Start of chunk
while((currentIndex < packets.length) && (new Date() - start < activeMilliseconds)) {
//Do something with packets[currentIndex]
currentIndex++;
}
return currentIndex;
}
3) Now that we are able to work for activeMilliseconds milliseconds, we need to use this asynchronously:
//Define packets
var currentIndex = 0;
var intervalID = setTimeout(function() {
If(currentIndex = doStuff(packets, currentIndex, activeMilliseconds) >= packets.length) clearInterval(intervalID);
}, totalMilliseconds);
Node: totalMilliseconds > activeMilliseconds should be true. For example, if totalMilliseconds is 250, and activeMilliseconds is 200, then in each 250 milliseconds a chunk will run for 200 milliseconds, leaving the browser to do its stuff for 50 milliseconds every 250 milliseconds even if there is a lot of work to do.
4) Make sure a job stops a previous similar job:
function doJob(packets, intervalID, activeMilliseconds, totalMilliseconds) {
clearInterval(intervalID);
//Define packets
var currentIndex = 0;
var intervalID = setTimeout(function() {
If(currentIndex = doStuff(packets, currentIndex, activeMilliseconds) >= packets.length) clearInterval(intervalID);
return intervalID;
}, totalMilliseconds);
}
If you use this idea for your key event, then it will stop the previous keyboard, your maximum wait time to do so will be activeMilliseconds, which is an acceptable compromise in my opinion.
That said, this methodology should be only used in the case when you have no other option. You need to know that Javascript has a single thread, so even if you trigger a function execution while a previous instance of the event is still running, your new event will sequentially be executed when the other event is finished.
I am currently working on a drum machine and I am using setTimeout to make it run. Here is the heart of the code:
var sequencerRun = function(){
var currentTime = 0
var starting = 200;
for(var k = 0; k < 16; k++){
$(".instrument td .beat" + k).each(function(){
setTimeout(blinker, currentTime,$(this));
})
currentTime += starting;
}
}
var timerId, setInt;
var runSeq = function(){
setInt = setInterval(sequencerRun,3200);
}
$('.play').click(function(){
stopped = false
sequencerRun();
runSeq();
})
$('.stop').click(function(){
clearInterval(setInt);
stopped = true;
})
The drum machine has a matrix HTML structure built using a table. When .play is clicked a scheduling process occurs, which is encapsulated in sequencerRun. This involves a run through the columns of my matrix to determine whether there should be a drum hit or not. This is done through blinker. The scheduling creates a check on each column 1 - 16 at times 0,200,...,3200 respectively. This is what creates the effect of a sequencer. I also have a setInterval that reruns this process every 3200, which is how it takes for a run to finish.
Programmatically my code seems to make sense and my hope was that it would execute on time. The thing is that my actual app tends to stutter a lot and is stuttering even more since I deployed it. Here is a deployed version of my app.
This stuttering side effect can be best heard when you click on a full row. My question here is can anyone tell if this side effect is a result of setTimeout's timing inconsistency and if so how could I go about fixing this? Or is this related to something else that I am missing?
I think the stuttering issue has more to do with you not preloading the instruments but rather loading them on every hit, more than it has to do with settimeout.
In any case, I think I would have solved this differently. Rather than setting a fresh timeout for each beat, create one beat timeout and put the logic in there. Something like (pseudo-code-ish, lots of stuff missing just the general idea):
var MAX_BEATS = 16; // I think you had 16 beats in your example?
var BPM = 200;
var preloadedInstruments = [];
function preloadInstruments(){
for(i of myInstruments) { // myInstruments would be a list of your instruments (probably just strings with a filename)
preloadedInstruments.push(new instrument(i)); // You need an instrument class, that would preload the sound and provide a play function
}
}
var currentbeat = 1;
function beat() {
var activeInstruments = getActiveInstruments(currentbeat); // You could cache this also for every beat, but I think a simple loop here would be quick enough
for(instrument of activeInstruments) {
preloadedInstruments[instrument].play(); // play method of the instrument class called
}
currentbeat++;
if (currentbeat > MAX_BEATS) {
currentbeat = 1;
}
}
setInterval(beat, 60e3 / BPM);
I planned to use setInterval to simply set a variable to false, which would be inspected by the main loop to stop. Example (note: this is an example only, the acutal code is not a while() loop which would be easy to reconstruct, but a quite complex, and long to execute script generated by a closed source software actually):
var running = true;
setInterval(function () {
if (running) {
console.log("Stopping now!");
running = false;
}
}, 100);
while (running) {
// do something ...
}
However it does not seem to work at least firefox drops a "busy script" box after a while. What's the problem with the code above? setInterval() may not be able to run if your script already runs otherwise? I couldn't find an exact specification what setInterval() does exactly.
I would need something like this, since I already have huge (and very long to execute) script, so I thought I will try to stop it after a while, then using setTimeout() to let the browser breath a bit and then continue: as the script itself does know its internal state so it can continue from any point, but it's not an option to modify the script actually ....
If it's not possible with setInterval, is there any alternative to this, without any modification in the "long to execute" code itself?
Thanks!
If it's not possible with setInterval, is there any alternative to this, without any modification in the "long to execute" code itself?
One possibility is to make that a web worker rather than trying to use it on the UI thread. Despite people repeatedly saying so, JavaScript is not single-threaded (JavaScript, the language, is silent on the subject), not even on browsers anymore. In the browser environment, there is one main UI thread, but you can spawn other worker threads (web workers). The worker(s) and the main UI code can communicate via postMessage / onmessage.
Here's an example of a web worker in action. This page uses JavaScript on the UI thread to start a web worker, which runs on a separate thread. The worker runs for 10 seconds, busily updating a counter (this is just to simulate a long-running, calculation-intensive process), and sends updates to the UI thread every second:
Main page:
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Worker Example</title>
<style type="text/css">
body {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
</style>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<script>
(function() {
var worker = new Worker("worker.js");
worker.onmessage = function(e) {
display("Worker says " + e.data);
};
display("Starting worker");
worker.postMessage("start");
function display(msg) {
var p = document.createElement('p');
p.innerHTML = String(msg);
document.body.appendChild(p);
}
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>
worker.js:
this.onmessage = function(e) {
var counter, lastUpdate, now;
if (e.data === "start") {
// Loop without yeilding for 10 seconds, sending updates
// to the UI every second.
start = lastUpdate = Date.now();
counter = 0;
do {
++counter;
now = Date.now();
if (now - lastUpdate > 1000) {
lastUpdate = now;
this.postMessage(counter);
}
}
while (now - start < 10000);
this.postMessage("Done");
}
};
(You're not required to make the worker wait for a message to start, but it's fairly common.)
The problem is that Javascript is single-threaded. Rewrite your while loop to use setInterval itself and everything should work, since you will release the thread at the end of each loop.
You should use setTimeout or setInterval instead while loop. JS runs in single thread, so infinite loop will freeze your browser.
var running = true;
setInterval(function(){
if(running){
console.log('Stopping now!');
running = false;
}
}, 100);
(function loop(){
// Do yours loop stuff
if( running ){
setTimeout(loop, 0);
}
})();
You should consider using Worker or writing asynchronous code.
Or you can modify your code.
var running = true;
var past = Date.now();
while (running) {
// do heavy calculations ...
if ((Date.now() - past) > 10) {
running = false;
}
}
Of course, blocking loops aren't good idea, but I don't see good way to satisfy requirement:
If it's not possible with setInterval, is there any alternative to this, without any modification in the "long to execute" code itself?
JavaScript runs in a single threaded event loop. What this means is while your code is running no other code can run. This is why your callback does not get executed.
You can workaround this by also making your while(running) be asynchronous. Consider doing the following:
var running = true;
var monitor = setInterval(function () {
if (running) {
console.log("Stopping now!");
running = false;
clearInterval(monitor);
}
}, 100);
var work = setInterval(function() {
if (running) {
// do something
} else {
clearInterval(work);
}
}, 1);
Don't forget to call clearInterval!
I am trying to make a simple hidden object game using javascript. When the user finds and clicks an image, I want 3 things to happen in the following order; a sound plays, the image size increases, and the image goes invisible. The problem I am running into is getting the 3 events to happen sequentially, not concurrent. Right now, seems that all three events happen all at the same time.
I've tried using setTimeout(), and while that does create a delay, it still runs all functions at the same time, even if each function is nested in setTimeout.
Example: (all this does is waits 1.5 sec then plays the sound and makes the image invisible):
function FindIt(image, id){
var t = setTimeout('sound()',10);
var b = setTimeout('bigger(' + image + ')',30);
var h = setTimeout('hide(' + image + ')',1500);
}
Below are the functions I am currently using and the actual results are: click the image, nothing happens for 2 seconds, then the sound plays and the image goes invisible.
function FindIt(image, id){
sound();
bigger(image);
hide(image);
}
function sound(){
document.getElementById("sound_element").innerHTML= "<embed src='chime.wav' hidden=true autostart=true loop=false>";
}
function bigger(image){
var img = document.getElementById(image);
img.style.width = 112;
img.style.height = 112;
}
function hide(id){
var ms = 2000;
ms += new Date().getTime();
while (new Date() < ms){} //Create a 2 second delay
var img = document.getElementById(id);
img.style.visibility='hidden';
}
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
To trigger things sequentially, you need to execute the second item some amount of time after the first one completes, execute the third item some amount of time after the second one completes, etc...
Only your sound() function actually takes some time, so I'd suggest the following:
function FindIt(image, id){
sound();
// set timer to start next action a certain time after the sound starts
setTimeout(function() {
bigger(image);
// set timer to start next action a certain time after making the image bigger
setTimeout (function() {
hide(image);
}, 1000); // set this time for how long you want to wait after bigger, before hide
}, 1000); // set the time here for how long you want to wait after starting the sound before making it bigger
}
FYI, the animation capabilities in libraries like jQuery or YUI make this sort of thing a lot easier.
Also, please don't use this kind of construct in your JS:
while (new Date() < ms){}
That locks up the browser for that delay and is very unfriendly to the viewer. Use setTimeout to create a delay.
For reference, using the animation libraries in jQuery, the jQuery code to handle a click on the object and then animate it over a 2 second period to a larger size, delay for 1 second, then slideup to disappear is as follows:
$("#rect").click(function() {
$(this).animate({height: 200, width: 400}, 2000).delay(1000).slideUp();
});
jQuery manages an animation queue and handles setting all the timers and doing all the sequencing and animation for you. It's a lot, lot easier to program and gives a very nice result.
You can see it work and play with it here: http://jsfiddle.net/kC4Mz/.
why don't use "event" approach. like onTaskDone();
function task1(arg, onTask1Done){
console.log(arg);
if(onTask1Done)onTask1Done();
}
task1("working", function(){console.log("task2");});
The Frame.js library is designed to elegantly handle situations like this:
function FindIt(image, id){
Frame(10, function(next) { sound(); next(); });
Frame(30, function(next) { bigger(image); next(); });
Frame(1500, function(next) { hide(image); next(); });
Frame.start();
}
Frame.js offers many advantages over using standard timeouts, especially if you are doing a lot of this kind of thing, which for a game, you likely are.
https://github.com/bishopZ/Frame.js
Does the browser keep track of active setInterval and setTimeout IDs? Or is this solely up to the developer to keep track of?
If it does keep track of them, is it accessible via the BOM?
It is up for the developer to keep track of. You can do so by using the returned value of the setTimeout/setInterval function and passing that value to the clearTimeout/clearInterval function - as described in other answers here.
This appears to be because each browser will implement keeping track of the intervals in their own way.
From w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090212/no.html (a draft, but w3schools and http://w3.org/TR/Window explain it almost the same way) - setTimeout and setInterval return a long and clearTimeout/clearInterval accept a long to find and cancel
You can add such global timers tracking by overriding the setTimeout/seInterval functions. As a bonus you easily add code when a timer is set or popped, track live timers or popped timers, etc...
For example:
timers = {}; // pending timers will be in this variable
originalSetTimeout = window.setTimeout;
// override `setTimeout` with a function that keeps track of all timers
window.setTimeout = function(fu, t) {
var id = originalSetTimeout(function() {
console.log(id+" has timed out");
delete timers[id]; // do not track popped timers
fu();
}, t);
// track this timer in the `timers` variable
timers[id] = {id:id, setAt: new Date(), timeout: t};
console.log(id+" has been set to pop in "+t+"ms");
}
// from this point onward all uses of setTimeout will be tracked, logged to console and pending timers will be kept in the global variable "timers".
This may interest you, if you are curious about how the timer is 'remembered' by its window.
<!doctype html>
<html lang= "en">
<head>
<meta charset= "utf-8">
<title>Timer </title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Timers</h1>
<script>
if(!window.timers){
var timers= [], i= 0;
while(i<5){
timers.push(setInterval(function(){
if(confirm(timers.join('\n')+'\nRemove a timer?')){
clearInterval(timers.shift());
}
},
i*1000+1000));
++i;
}
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
Update:
There are 2 aspects to this question.
Does the browser keep track of timer IDs?
Are they accessible
I can only presume for #1 (and later #2) that the OP means "are they tracked" in the general sense because as a Developer s/he would like control over them.
In short, yes they are tracked (as #s_hewitt noted, as long values by the browser) and they can be managed by the developer by maintaining a reference to the timers when setup.
As a developer you can control (e.g. stop) them by calling (clearInterval(handleRef), or clearTimeout(handleRef))
However there is no default window.timers or similar collection that gives you a list of the existing timers - you will need to maintain that yourself if you feel you need to.
function startPolling(delay){
pollHandle = setInterval(doThis, delay);
}
function stopPolling(){
clearInterval(pollHandle);
}
function doThisIn30minUnlessStopped(){
timerHandle = setTimeout(doThisThing, 1800000);
}
function stop30minTimer(){
clearTimeout(timerHandle);
}
You simply need to create a variable reference to your timer, and if/when needed, clear it by name.
When you load another page, all the timers are automatically cleared by the browser so you don't need to maintain a handle, and clear them unless you need/want to.
Look at the scripts below, the browser could remember the id of each setTimeout iteration
for (i = 1; i <= d; i++) {
(function(j) {
var delay = j/d;
t[j] = setTimeout(function() {
elem.style.top = j+"px";
},delay);
})(i);
}
You can access them by
for (i in t) {
alert(t[i]);
}