Collection type javascript library (equivalent to using Blocks) ...

[Lobo]

I'm wondering how expensive and (in)efficient is to use Collection
type javascript library functions (similar to using Blocks), instead
of repeating the 'for' iterator over and over across a large
application.

I'm afraid that instantiating javascript Functions to act as Blocks in
these cases might require many more internal javascript resources
(time / memory) compared to using the 'for' statement - ?.

I would not want this to be the cause for my apps to eventually run
much slower (and consuming more memory).

For reference, define the following Collection type javascript
function:

function array_do (theArray, theBlock) {
for (var i=0; i<theArray.leng th; i++) {
var eachElement = theArray[i];
theBlock(eachEl ement);
}
}

.... and use it as follows:

array_do (testArray, function(each) { ... do something with
'each' ... } );

As you can see I would have to create a new javascript function each
time I need to execute the array_do function.

Thanks in advance.

[VK]

Re: Collection type javascript library (equivalent to using Blocks)...

On Feb 7, 6:54 pm, Lobo <carlosgali...@ gmail.comwrote:

I'm wondering how expensive and (in)efficient is to use Collection
type javascript library functions (similar to using Blocks), instead
of repeating the 'for' iterator over and over across a large
application.

Collections and blocks (as defined in your post) are from ol' good
linear programming. In OOP you are having a set of objects with
particular methods and properties and you are calling the necessary
method. If you don't need to keep particular data in each method for
each object instance then we define the method as static so no matter
how many object instance are created, they all will be using the same
scavenger (heap?)
In your case (if it is your case) that might be:

function MyObject {
// per-instance
// methods and properties
}

MyObject.protot ype.staticMetho d = function() {
// this.doSomethin g
}

and then could be

for (var i=0; i<myObjectsArra y.length; i++) {
myObjectsArray[i].staticMethod() ;
}

this way if cannot tell before runtime what kind of staticMethod you
may need and either it can be static or not: that would mean that your
OOP schema has a failure in it or not ready yet so it needs more
thinking over before implementing.

There is nothing criminal in using the old linear programming
approach, I just wanted to stress out that what you are doing is not
OOP.

<snip>

As you can see I would have to create a new javascript function each
time I need to execute the array_do function.

Not in OOP