Forum: Rails Spinoffs (closed, excessive spam) Enumerable.each() - why?

I often see people using fancy library methods, like Prototype's
Enumerable.each(), to
loop over arrays.

What's the point of this? Why not just do a standard for loop, like
so:

for ( var i = 0; i < myArray.length; i++ ) {
    // ...
}

It seems like it'd be faster, since it's working closer to the bare
metal. Am I wrong about this, or is there some other nuance I'm
missing?

In some cases, yes, it's pure sugar.

In some cases, yes, you may notice a speed difference. But only if 
you're
looping through a megaton of items and doing a supermegaton of 
processing.

In most case, it's effect on performance is not worth mentioning.

The main point of it, though, is it's a nice clean way to iterate a
collection AND have a new local scope for each iteration of the loop. 
The
closure provided by .each(fn(item, index)) comes in very handy in many
cases.

Plus:

for (var i = 0; i < blah.length; i++) {
var item = blah[i];
doSomething(item);
}

is more verbose than:

blah.each(doSomething);

And finally, you're right that .each is one of the lesser value-add 
methods
in Enumerable. Certainly .invoke, .collect, etc... are doing more work. 
But
personally I like the "predicate and delegate" patterns - also prevalent 
in
C# and Java (via Generics) - that Enumerable provides with it methods,
including each.

I've been bitten several times with a for loop that didn't quite work as
expected because I, or someone, forgot about the absence of block level
scoping in javascript.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:10 PM, greenie2600 <greenie2600@yahoo.com> 
wrote:

> }
>
> It seems like it'd be faster, since it's working closer to the bare
> metal. Am I wrong about this, or is there some other nuance I'm
> missing?
>
> >
>


--
Ryan Gahl
Manager, Senior Software Engineer
Nth Penguin, LLC
http://www.nthpenguin.com
--
WebWidgetry.com / MashupStudio.com
Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform
--
Inquire: 1-920-574-2218
Blog: http://www.someElement.com
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryangahl

Ah. The bit about creating a clean scope for each iteration makes
sense. I've been simulating that by resetting my "block-level"
variables to null at the top of the loop.

Thanks! I'll keep this in mind.

I don't know if I could ever go back to programming in a language 
without
closures anymore. :-)  That used to bite me so many times in JS, 
mindlessly
assuming that a block has a closure.

-Fred

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, greenie2600 <greenie2600@yahoo.com> 
wrote:

>
> Ah. The bit about creating a clean scope for each iteration makes
> sense. I've been simulating that by resetting my "block-level"
> variables to null at the top of the loop.
>
> Thanks! I'll keep this in mind.


--
Science answers questions; philosophy questions answers.