Timeline for Loop through an array in JavaScript
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2022 at 21:52 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
new tests
|
| Mar 1, 2021 at 5:21 | comment | added | Kamil Kiełczewski | @Pitouli you are right - I rollback answer to its initial form. When I have more time then I will perform benchamarks again | |
| Mar 1, 2021 at 5:17 | history | rollback | Kamil Kiełczewski |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Mar 1, 2021 at 3:52 | comment | added | Pitouli | Careful! The benchmark is wrong, because the array is not reset between each execution. Since the shift() has emptied the array after the first execution, all the subsequent executions are indeed extremely fast :p When you correctly reset the array, it appears that this solution is the second slowest. jsbench.me/4dklq1kjef/1 | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 20:03 | comment | added | Arthur S |
This isn't esoteric. Its simply unnecessary and makes an assumption that the a variable will not be used in further code.
|
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 8:35 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | Even if it does not exist in your native language, you should not leave out articles in English (the indefinite article ("a" or "an") and the definite article ("the")). See e.g. English Articles - 3 Simple Rules To Fix Common Grammar Mistakes & Errors and A, AN, THE - Articles in English. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 8:33 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dax90QyXgI&t=17m54s> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dax90QyXgI&t=19m05s>].
|
| Aug 9, 2020 at 7:26 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 6, 2020 at 8:01 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 351 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 22:11 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 180 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 21:47 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 7:05 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 6:30 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 6:13 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 21:29 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 21:23 | comment | added | Kamil Kiełczewski |
@Sapphire_Brick - thank you for your comment - I tink using console.log in tests is not good because it is complex system function and have big impact on run time. I check with r+=a[i].length (sum of words length) for array witch 1000 elements - and still this solution was much faster than other solution (and probaly the speed difference grow when number of elements grow...) - I'm surprised too that this solution is so fast :)
|
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 21:18 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 21:11 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 231 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 21:02 | history | edited | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 231 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 20:51 | comment | added | Sapphire_Brick |
You have make a good point. I ran your example with an array of 1000 items, and while(a.length) { console.log(a.shift()); } was about twice as fast as the for(var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { console.log(a[i]); } version. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
| Jul 24, 2020 at 22:04 | comment | added | Kamil Kiełczewski | @Sapphire_Brick don't be lazy! :) you can check it your self- I give you link (test) to tool in above comment. However for small array case (as OP uses) when you need to optimize speed you should choose solution fastest for small arrays (not for big arrays - which can be different) | |
| Jul 24, 2020 at 21:24 | comment | added | Sapphire_Brick |
Of course a simple program like this is fast, but how does it scale in comparison to for(...;...;...) or for(... of ...)?
|
|
| Jul 24, 2020 at 10:06 | comment | added | Kamil Kiełczewski | @Sapphire_Brick actually it is quite fast - here is test | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 2:49 | comment | added | Sapphire_Brick | that's the Haskell-y way to do it; keep taking the first one. clever, but probably slow. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 6:40 | history | answered | Kamil Kiełczewski | CC BY-SA 4.0 |