Basic JavaScript question: Since there is no hard limit for arrays as the case with Java (i.e. IndexOutOfBoundsException), what is the use of the declaration where we specify the length property?
var a = new Array(10);
I know it predefines the length and puts "undefined" into those empty spots. Is that reason enough for having it?
new is used for allocating dynamic objects (which can grow like, ArrayList ), but arrays are static (can't grow). So one of them is unnecessary: the new or the size of the array.
The call to new Array(number) creates an array with the given length, but without elements. The length property is the array length or, to be precise, its last numeric index plus one.
To create an array with N elements containing the same value: Use the Array() constructor to create an array of N elements. Use the fill() method to fill the array with a specific value. The fill method changes all elements in the array to the supplied value.
They are fundamentally similar. [] is pretty much shortcut for new Array() , so it is preferable. The former is called an array literal/array shorthand. The latter is an example of using the array constructor, which really does the same thing (the array constructor gets called behind the scenes for the literal).
There are many perceived benefits of declaring an array size, but I think the majority of the perceived benefits are just FUD being passed around.
Better performance!/It's faster!
As far as I can tell the difference between pre-allocating and dynamic allocation is negligible.
More interestingly, the spec does not state that the array should be set to a pre-allocated length!
From Section 15.4.2.2 ECMA-262:
If the argument len is a Number and ToUint32(len) is equal to len, then the length property of the newly constructed object is set to ToUint32(len). If the argument len is a Number and ToUint32(len) is not equal to len, a RangeError exception is thrown.
An unscientific for-fun test case is here: http://jsbin.com/izini
It makes for more understandable code!
Personally, I disagree.
Consider the javascript you have written in the past, and consider code you may have to write in the future. I can't think of a single time where I've needed to specify a static limit on one of my arrays. I'd also argue that the potential problems of limiting arrays in javascript highly outweigh the benefits caused by letting people know what you were thinking with no actual checks behind it. Lets weigh the pros and cons...
Pros:
Cons:
You may as well have written:
//I assume this array will always be length 10 var arr = new Array();
In the above case the comment might even be preferable. The explicit declaration of intent can avoid any confusion not used to using the constructor as a declaration of intent.
Fine then.. why do you think it's even there then?
Convenience. When they were writing the spec I think they realized two things.
So they put it in there. The spec only defines the use of the parameter, not how it should be implemented.
Performance on the V8 JavaScript engine.
By doing:
var arr = []; arr.length = 1000;
V8 will preallocate the required memory for the array and maintain/set the array's Hidden Class
to compact SMI (Small Int, 31 bits unsigned) array. However, this is not true when the desired length is too big, which results in the HC being set to sparse array (i.e., map).
Try the following link on Chrome: http://jsperf.com/0-fill-n-size-array
I've included an extra test case without the array length definition so you can tell the actual performance difference.
Related info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJPdhx5zTaw
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With