Prev: It's a fact not lost on the opportunity to see yourself
Next: Location Intelligence demo
From: Antony Scriven on 30 Mar 2010 10:57
On Mar 30, 2:55 pm, "Dmitry A. Soshnikov" wrote:

> [...]
>
> var array = [1, 2, 3];
>
> array.map(function (item) {
> return item % 2 != 0;
>
> }); [1, 3]

Typo: should be `array.filter(...'. --Antony
From: Antony Scriven on 30 Mar 2010 11:06
On Mar 30, 3:04 pm, "Dmitry A. Soshnikov" wrote:

> [... on forEach() and friends vs. for-loop ...]
>
> Addition: of course if you don't need some polymorphic
> unlimited test conditions/applies, you can simply use
> for-iteration in place - this is faster and absolutely
> normal as it is also a construction of the language. So
> if some will tell you that using a functional style - is
> cool just because it is modern (or sort of), don't
> listen. But the other talk is (as I said above) an
> increasing of abstraction and providing elegant solutions
> with a good code reuse - in this case the functional
> approach is a very good decision.

Agreed. I'd like to add that in my experience that I get
code right first time more often when using the functional
style; I guess that's because of the reasons you mention.
I think the functional style expresses intent, rather than
the mechanics of the iteration; I certainly don't make any
off-by-one errors when using forEach(). Also you get a new
scope within the function passed to forEach() which can be
helpful. --Antony
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: It's a fact not lost on the opportunity to see yourself
Next: Location Intelligence demo