Develop Reference

a function that only calls input function f every 50 milliseconds

I am new to js.
I am trying to make a function that only calls input function f every 50 milliseconds.
wrote the code in the fiddle using setTimeout.
but isn't doing exactly what I wanted it to do
can you tell me how to fix it.
providing code below
https://jsfiddle.net/1pqznbgt/
function callSeconds(f){
setTimeout(function(){
alert("testing");
}, 500)
}

You are looking for setInterval instead of setTimeout (setTimeout will execute once, setInterval will execute at an interval)
The 500 in your sample means 500ms rather than 50ms
You will want to call f rather than your anonymous function, so:
What you are looking for is something like:
function callSeconds(f){
setInterval(f, 50);
}

The problem I see is that every time you call an alert() you are stopping execution of JavaScript and each browser can implement the alert differently . setTimeout() only executes once so if you call the function it will wait 500ms and issue an alert if you want a piece of code to operate continually you must use the setInterval() function but you still have the problem of how the browser chooses to handle the alert() function, normally an alert pauses execution of the current code, what effect that has on a timed execution function I do not know. I would try execution on something that does not pause or stop execution of the script. I also notice that in the code segment you have not invoked the parent function that would call the setTimeout function.

You can do one of 2 things here.
First, don't use setTimeout.
Instead use setInterval (f,50).
Or recursively call the function as so:
function foo (f){
f();
setTimeout (foo,50);
}

Javascript timers in which order

See the below code
vat t = setTimeout(x, 1000);
vat t1 = setTimeout(y, 1100);
var t2 = setTimoue(z, 4000);
The order of execution is t, t1 and t2. So, t is executed after 1s. Till here is fine. Then is t1 executed after 100ms(1100 - 1000) or is it executed 1100ms after t is executed?

t1 will be executed 100ms after t was executed.
But actually, if the page is busy, setTimeout may be fired later so that it can less or greater than 100ms.

Above is the correct answer, although I would encourage you, going forward, when possible, to go open up the JavaScript console in your browser and figure it out yourself. console.log(Date.now()) in your code and test it. When I first got into coding, I would always turn to pros for simple questions (out of habit), but in my experience, being successful in coding often means knowing HOW to get the answer, as opposed to just knowing WHAT the answer is.
Additionally, I would argue you're much more likely to remember the answer if you identified it yourself instead of someone just telling you.
Good luck!

If you want to control the order of execution I really think you should sequence the timeouts.
var t = setTimeout(x, 1000);
function x(){
setTimeout(y, 100);
}
function y(){
setTimeout(z, 2900);
}
In any case I'm not sure you should be doing any of this in the first place.
If you want to call one function after another just use the .call or .apply.
take a look at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/call

JavaScript is single-threaded. If some block of code uses execution thread, no other code can be executed. This means your setTimeout() call must wait until main execution finishes.
[from here]setTimeout behaviour with blocking code

Javascript stack and recursive calls

Assume the following method(Just curious, I'm hopefully fail in js)
foo(0);
function foo(i){
if(i<1000){
setTimeout(function(){foo(i+1);}, 1000);
}
alert('I am foo');
}
So if I got it true, it should alerts around 1000 I am foos after 1000 seconds.
So doesn't it bother the browser about keeping the is in a sort of big stack? it should be too much I think or I'm wrong?

Yes, you will alert 1000 "foo" messages with this code.
However, the browser will not get bothered by the amount of i variables. i is a local variable to foo and as a result, it is only kept around as long as foo is executing. Each time the setTimeout callback is finished executing, i and the entire function's footprint is eligible for garbage collection by the browser (which will happen at an opportune time).
The reason for this is that there is no preserved memory call stack here because of the use of setTimeout. setTimeout does not do anything with a returned value from foo and as a result there are no pointers in memory keeping that function nor its variable environment from being collected.

Your call stack will look like this as your code goes through it's loop:
main() [local foo]
main() -> foo [local i = 0]
main()
(empty)
setTimeout()
setTimeout() -> foo [local i = 1]
setTimeout()
(empty)
setTimeout()
setTimeout() -> foo [local i = 2]
setTimeout()
(empty)
over and over until i equals 1000.
It happens this way because setTimeout is a browser api that waits n amount of time and then inserts the callback into the callback queue. The callback will then get picked up by the event loop and executed when the callstack is empty.
So, no, you aren't in any danger of overloading the browser with stacks or vars or whatever you were worried about. Your callstack will remain small because each time foo is executed, it fires off a setTimeout and returns. the i will stay in memory until the setTimeout's callback gets executed, at which point a new i will be created within the scope created by executing foo. That new i will stay in memory until the next setTimeout executes, on and on.
Here's a video that may help explain how this works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aGhZQkoFbQ

Firstly in javascript there is no "int" you have to say var i. And it gets alone the type for the declaration. If you want get Information about stack. You can use the debug console. And navigate to the call stacks. Its a nice feature you have also a nice overview. I prefer the Chromes Debugger. You can get there with pressing F12

1000 is in a stack is not a really big size for a browser to deal with.
Moreover, there won't be more than 2 is at the same time (maybe even only one), with each function executing every second.
This code won't load 1000 calls to get triggered with an interval of 1 second, this will chain calls, preventing the stack to get bloated.

Do nothing if the same function is already running

I have a javascript function that runs every 3 seconds, is there any way to do nothing if a previous instance of the function is already running?

I assume you are running heavy function with setInterval and want to skip one tick if previous one has not completed.
Then, instead of
function yourfoo() {
// code
}
setInterval(yourfoo, 3000);
do:
function yourfoo() {
// code
setTimeout(yourfoo, 3000);
}
setTimeout(yourfoo, 3000);
This guarantees next call is not scheduled until previous one is completed.

you could define a boolean flag to indicate the running state of the function on a higher scope, and switch it on or off accordingly.

Yes.
This is done by default.
It's called JavaScript is single threaded.
Two functions can't run at the same time.
Your probably using setInterval which will internally buffer function calls until any currently running code is finished.

JavaScript is single threaded, meaning that only one block of JavaScript will get executed at a given time. So even when the timer fires the execution of the code will be queued until the next available moment. Important to know is that if you're using a setInterval only one interval "fire" will get queued and all others will be dropped until there are no more intervals of this type on the queue.
Here's a great explanation of how this works by jQuery's father John Resig: http://ejohn.org/blog/how-javascript-timers-work/
You could rewrite your code to use setTimeout, because that way you're guaranteed that the next executing of the code will only take place after waiting at least the stated number of milliseconds (can be more if execution is blocked). Using setInterval the blocking could result in a back-to-back execution of the code if the code takes a long time to finish.
So, do something like this to prevent the back-to-back execution:
var nrOfMillisecondsToWait = 200;
setTimeout(function() {
.. your code here
}, nrOfMillisecondsToWait);

js fade in onLoad with for-loop, styles, and setInterval not working?

Why when calling fadeIn() onLoad does the browser run through the loop immediately. In other words there is an issue with either the setInterval or the Opacityto().
function Opacityto(elem,v){
elem.style.opacity = v/100;
elem.style.MozOpacity = v/100;
elem.style.KhtmlOpacity = v/100;
elem.style.filter=" alpha(opacity ="+v+")";}
function fadeIn(){
elem=document.getElementById('nav');
for (i=0;i==100;i++){
setInterval(Opacityto(elem,i),100);}
}
I think someone will tell me this can be done easiest with jQuery but I'm interested in doing it with javascript.
Thanks!HelP!

You've got several problems with your fadeIn() function:
A. Your for loop condition is i==100, which is not true on the first iteration and thus the body of the for loop will never be executed (the i++ won't ever happen). Perhaps you meant i<=100 or i<100 (depending on whether you want the loop to run 101 or 100 times)?
B. Your setInterval code has a syntax error EDIT: since you've updated your question to remove the quotes - setInterval expects either a string or a function reference/expression. So you need to either pass it the name of a function without parentheses and parameters, or a function expression like the anonymous function expression you can see in my code down below. in the way you try to build the string you are passing it. You've got this:
"Opacityto("+elem,i+")"
but you need this:
"Opacityto(elem," + i + ")"
The latter produces a string that, depending on i, looks like "Opacityto(elem,0)", i.e., it produces a valid piece of JavaScript that will call the Opacityto() function.
C. You probably want setTimeout() rather than setInterval(), because setInterval() will run your Opacityto() function every 100ms forever, while setTimeout() will run Opacityto() exactly once after the 100ms delay. Given that you are calling it in a loop I'm sure you don't really want to call setInterval() 100 times to cause your function Opacityto() to be run 100 times every 100ms forever.
D. Even fixing all of the above, your basic structure will not do what you want. When you call setInterval() or setTimeout() it does not pause execution of the current block of code. So the entire for loop will run and create all of your intervals/timeouts at once, and then when the 100ms is up they'll all be triggered more or less at once. If your intention is to gradually change the opacity with each change happening every 100ms then you need the following code (or some variation thereon):
function fadeIn(i){
// if called with no i parameter value initialise i
if (typeof i === "undefined") {
i = -1;
}
if (++i <= 100) {
Opacityto(document.getElementById('nav'), i);
setTimeout(function() { fadeIn(i); }, 100);
}
}
// kick it off:
fadeIn();
What the above does is defines fadeIn() and then calls it passing no parameter. The function checks if i is undefined and if so sets it to -1 (which is what happens if you call it without passing a parameter). Then it increments i and checks if the result is less than or equal to 100 and if so calls Opacityto() passing a reference to the element and i. Then it uses setTimeout() to call itself in 100ms time, passing the current i through. Because the setTimeout() is inside the if test, once i gets big enough the function stops setting timeouts and the whole process ends.
There are several other ways you could implement this, but that's just the first that happened as I started typing...

My guess is that there is a nasty comma inside the setInterval, messing the argument list:
"Opacityto("+elem,i+")"
^^^
here
You could try quoting the comma
+ "," +
but eval is evil so don't do that. The good way is to pass a real callback function:
function make_opacity_setter(elem, i){
return function(){
OpacityTo(elem, i);
};
}
...
setTimeout( make_opacity_setter(elem, i), 1000);
Do note that the intermediate function-making-function is needed to avoid the nasty interaction between closures and for-loops.
BTW, when you do
setInterval(func(), 1000)
you call func once yourself and then pass its return value to setInterval. since setInterval receives a junk value instead of a callback it won't work as you want to.