The Most Challenging Interview Question
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Mike Duffy on 8 May 2010 22:47 "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel(a)aol.com> wrote in news:84lb67F19cU1 @mid.individual.net: >>>What's the difference between a Duck ? >> >> See: http://www.swiftys.org.uk/wiz?1461 > > Sorry, the answer is: > > "One of its legs is both the same." > > (and note the correct usage of "its" ) > > You guys 'quack me up' ! > > but enough already :( Yeh, flock off!
From: Garrett Smith on 9 May 2010 02:39 David Mark wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > [...] > > I just don't care to evaluate the length property each time through (or > to splice one member at a time), even in an example. And though > slightly longer, I consider mine to be easier to understand at a glance. It is not surprising that you would find your solution easier to understand; you wrote it. However, it is longer and more complicated. Although the while loop was very fast, it was not as fast as the for loop. Cyclomatic complexity is number of decisions +1. The while-loop based function has a while loop, a nested while loop, and two decisions: `if` and ternary `?`. It has a count of 5. The for loop with one decision has a count of 3. If I am wrong about the cyclomatic complexity calculation, somebody please correct me. Neither are very complicated, but the for loop is shorter, simpler, and more straightforward. It wins by a small margin. The array filter approach not as fast, as is to be expected, however it is the simplest of all, with cyclomatic complexity of 2. > YMMV. > > The strict comparison is a good idea in this case though. Making sure the code does what expected of it is the most important thing. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: David Mark on 9 May 2010 02:51 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >> > [...] >> >> I just don't care to evaluate the length property each time through (or >> to splice one member at a time), even in an example. And though >> slightly longer, I consider mine to be easier to understand at a glance. > > It is not surprising that you would find your solution easier to > understand; you wrote it. However, it is longer and more complicated. > Although the while loop was very fast, it was not as fast as the for loop. > > Cyclomatic complexity is number of decisions +1. > > The while-loop based function has a while loop, a nested while loop, and > two decisions: `if` and ternary `?`. It has a count of 5. > > The for loop with one decision has a count of 3. > > If I am wrong about the cyclomatic complexity calculation, somebody > please correct me. > > Neither are very complicated, but the for loop is shorter, simpler, and > more straightforward. It wins by a small margin. > > The array filter approach not as fast, as is to be expected, however it > is the simplest of all, with cyclomatic complexity of 2. I think you are oversimplifying. For one, it depends very much on the data in this case. Only way to be sure is to benchmark it with various data sets. I can't say as I'm interested enough to do it though.
From: Garrett Smith on 9 May 2010 03:57 David Mark wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> [...] >> The array filter approach not as fast, as is to be expected, however it >> is the simplest of all, with cyclomatic complexity of 2. > > I think you are oversimplifying. For one, it depends very much on the > data in this case. Only way to be sure is to benchmark it with various > data sets. I can't say as I'm interested enough to do it though. How does cyclomatic complexity depend on the data? [1,2,3,4,5,2,4,21,7,4,2,8].filter(function(i){ return i !== 3; }); I count one decision: i !== 3. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Ry Nohryb on 9 May 2010 04:15
On May 9, 4:14 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > > [...] > > > > > How about a forward loop using splice? > > > function removeThrees(a) { > > for(var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { > > if(a[i] === 3) { > > a.splice(i,1); > > } > > } > > return a; > > } > > I just don't care to evaluate the length property each time through (or > to splice one member at a time), even in an example. And though > slightly longer, I consider mine to be easier to understand at a glance. > YMMV. > > The strict comparison is a good idea in this case though. Hey, that code skips over any item coming after a 3... geniuses! -- Jorge. |