I think it's very important to find a better optimizing way for Array in
different situation,
your application Performance could be consist of Array over 30% . (Array
used anywhere!)
(For example , if you are using jQuery , it means you are facing a lot of
Dom Arrays)
And we usually use Array
IMO this is a very good example of over optimizing. Choose the one that's
most readable and shorter to write (= push() ).
Array performance is simply not something you should care about in 99% of JS
apps. Unless you actually find yourself pushing 10K items into an array (in
which case it's almost
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:29 AM, אריה גלזר arieh.gla...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO this is a very good example of over optimizing. Choose the one that's
most readable and shorter to write (= push() ).
Array performance is simply not something you should care about in 99% of JS
apps. Unless you
Can somebody explain this behaviour?
http://jsperf.com/array-push
Why it is better to use a function instead of direct access?
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive,
Why it is better to use a function instead of direct access?
It's not always better.
Push is far better when you're not sure what the next index of your array
is. for example:
[87, 2, 369, , , , 42, 53]
If i remember correctly .length will return 5, which means if you started
adding in
Length should return the value of the last index + 1, so in that case length
will return 8: http://jsfiddle.net/
http://jsfiddle.net/.length is defined that way so you can safely use it
to iterate over all the elements of an array with a for loop.
AFAIK, `arr[arr.length] = x;` is functionally
Length should return the value of the last index + 1, so in that case
length will return 8
I knew I should have checked before stating that.
--
Rob Griffiths
http://bytespider.eu
@bytespider http://twitter.com/bytespider
https://github.com/bytespider
--
To view archived discussions from
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Josi mich...@josi.de wrote:
Can somebody explain this behaviour?
http://jsperf.com/array-push
Why it is better to use a function instead of direct access?
It's not per se, although some browsers can optimize patterns they
recognize. (If you somehow mess
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Rob Griffiths r...@bytespider.eu wrote:
Length should return the value of the last index + 1, so in that case
length will return 8
I knew I should have checked before stating that.
--
Rob Griffiths
http://bytespider.eu
@bytespider
btw ,there's a interesting topic ,too.
if you are doing array concat job, you could take a look for this.
http://jsfiddle.net/We9p9/1/
The keypoint is , even when you are using array.push ,
*ary.push(1,2,3,4,5);*
is still faster then
*ary.push(1);
ary.push(2);
ary.push(3);
ary.push(4);
Oops , I find this script is too heavy for my ie8 but it's fine for firefox.
(that's just like what we know )
Don't click it if you are using IE. haha
This is a smaller amount version.
http://jsfiddle.net/We9p9/3/
And the speed still very depends on your browser implemention between
11 matches
Mail list logo
