Reading the article, it seems hard to find anything that does not suck (or at least, is not counter-intuitive) in JS.
So many trivialities have to be taken into account.
- You have to store the array length in advance before a loop? wtf?
- "for in" loops are inherently dangerous. wtf?
Every language has pitfalls but javascript seems king above even C++...
No. "for-in" loops that iterate through the properties of an object, and do something with them, without checking to ensure that the property is specific to that object, as opposed to something another library added to the Object.prototype, are dangerous.
The article did a poor job in that section of pointing out _what_ exactly is dangerous. It's not _every_ for-in loop. It's that one in particular, really.
Comments
True, but as someone who has a java background and is working on js, it's nice to know that switches suck in js :)
I would be very careful (i.e. run my own tests, in multiple browsers) before believing that.
Or, like my college teachers told me, "measure, don't guess".
I am a bit ashamed to confess I do a lot of guessing in my work...
Reading the article, it seems hard to find anything that does not suck (or at least, is not counter-intuitive) in JS. So many trivialities have to be taken into account.
- You have to store the array length in advance before a loop? wtf?
- "for in" loops are inherently dangerous. wtf?
Every language has pitfalls but javascript seems king above even C++...
> - "for in" loops are inherently dangerous. wtf?
No. "for-in" loops that iterate through the properties of an object, and do something with them, without checking to ensure that the property is specific to that object, as opposed to something another library added to the Object.prototype, are dangerous.
The article did a poor job in that section of pointing out _what_ exactly is dangerous. It's not _every_ for-in loop. It's that one in particular, really.
Most people using for..in in Javascript as beginners really want to use Array.forEach