Hi,
> Like I already said; constants add much more bulk to the JS source code. Try
> it and you’ll see…
I’ve tried it and they don’t, but perhaps I’m missing something?
Looking some AS code like so:
var result1:String = "One" + "Two" + "Three";
var result2:String = ONE + TWO + THREE;
var result3:String = Outside.ONE + Outside.TWO + Outside.THREE;
var duplicate1:String = "One" + "Two" + "Three";
var duplicate2:String = ONE + TWO + THREE;
var duplicate3:String = Outside.ONE + Outside.TWO + Outside.THREE;
On the debug side we get:
In Outside.js:
Outside.ONE = "One”;
Outside.TWO = "Two”;
Outside.THREE = "Three”;
In main program:
StaticConst.ONE = "One”;
StaticConst.TWO = "Two”;
StaticConst.THREE = "Three";
var /** @type {string} */ result1 = "One" + "Two" + "Three";
var /** @type {string} */ result2 = StaticConst.ONE + StaticConst.TWO +
StaticConst.THREE;
var /** @type {string} */ result3 = Outside.ONE + Outside.TWO + Outside.THREE;
var /** @type {string} */ duplicate1 = "One" + "Two" + "Three";
var /** @type {string} */ duplicate2 = StaticConst.ONE + StaticConst.TWO +
StaticConst.THREE;
var /** @type {string} */ duplicate3 = Outside.ONE + Outside.TWO +
Outside.THREE;
There doesn’t seem to be any optimisation in any of the three methods for debug
and in fact using strings vs static const looks to increases the memory use of
the code as you have multiple instances of “one”, “two”, “three”.It may do some
optimisation at runtime I guess. But at a casual glance hard coding duplicate
strings seem worse off although I agree it doesn’t have the object property
lookup cost. I can’t see that would be significant.
For release we get all three get treated exactly same way as Greg pointed out.
In fact it goes as far as to optimise them all to be the same variable and use
that single variable rather than have 6 different variables.
So I can’t really see any reason for hard coding this in the SDK as it seems
you get exactly the same results in production and probably better off in debug.
Thanks,
Justin
