Unfortunately, `Array.from({ length: 4 }, () => whatever)` produces a holey
array, so that the `.repeat(...)` idea, if capable of packing elements in a
better way, wouldn't be so terrible, as simplification.Although, the intent of this proposal was to also grant "shapes" or kindness of each entry, same way typed Arrays do, but maybe that would require some better primitive, as in `const Shape = Object.defineShape(...)` and `Object.createShape(Shape)` or similar. On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:01 PM Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > That already exists - `Array.from({ length: 4 }, () => whatever)` - I > assume that the hope is to have an array where it is *impossible* for it to > have the wrong "kind" of data, and a userland factory function wouldn't > provide that. > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:39 AM kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > It's a bit of a mess to create an Array that is not holed and gets best >> optimizations [1], and this proposal would like to address that exact case. >> >> could the performance issue be resolved more easily with a simple >> static-function `Array.repeat(<length>, <repeater>)`? >> >> ```js >> let structuredList; >> structuredList = Array.repeat(4, function (ii) { >> return { >> index: 2 * ii + 1, >> tags: [] >> }); >> /* >> structuredList = [ >> { index: 1, tags: [] }, >> { index: 3, tags: [] }, >> { index: 5, tags: [] }, >> { index: 7, tags: [] } >> ]; >> */ >> ``` >> >> the only time i can practically enforce the shape of a "StructuredArray" >> is during element-insertion, >> and a userland insertion/creation function would be just as effective as >> a StructuredArray constructor. >> >> enforcing shapes during element deletions and updates are going to be hard >> and likely just as confusing with StructuredArray as they are with >> regular Array. >> >> also note that most javascript arrays need to be easily JSON-serialized >> for message-passing >> over-the-wire (commonly http) to external systems. >> >> -kai >> >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:46 AM Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > having to retroactively add checks like... >>> >>> we already have typed arrays in JS so I don't think this would be any >>> different >>> >>> > I _think_ that moderns virtual machines already did these >>> optimisations despite there isn't a TypedArray like that. >>> >>> It's a bit of a mess to create an Array that is not holed and gets best >>> optimizations [1], and this proposal would like to address that exact case. >>> >>> [1] https://v8.dev/blog/elements-kinds >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
