*nods* I find that it's often much easier to read when you use for..in and for each..in rather than regular for. And since you need to have a "var current = list[i]" or similar as the first line, If you only need an index to display, or it's 1-based as opposed to 0-based, using a "for [each]..in" and having the first inner line be "++idx" will be easier to read than a bunch of statements within your loop that look like:
var current = foo[i+1] or msg = "you're at item #" + (i + 1) If you want to know more about for each and how it works (outside of Arrays at least), look into flash.Proxy. The documentation is a little unclear at times on Proxy, so I wrote a couple of posts on using it here: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/2008/09/using-proxy-class-part-1_04.html http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/2008/09/using-proxy-class-part-2.html * IMHO, YMMV, (code) beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc... =] -Josh On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Maciek Sakrejda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Interesting. I decided to actually try my test above, and on 1000000 > items, the for-each version takes ~50 milliseconds, versus ~25 > milliseconds for the explicitly indexed loop. When doing some actual > work in the loop (a trace), the numbers are 41.9 seconds for the > for-each and 41.1 seconds for the indexed for. On a loop with a trace > with 100 items, both forms take ~5 milliseconds. This is rather > unscientific, but I don't have the profiler available (will it ever make > it to Linux, Adobe?). > > So yes, it looks like for-each is a lot slower in some cases, but I'll > maintain it still probably won't make a difference unless you've got a > massive loop that does very little, or a deeply nested set of loops. > > Consider also the readability and maintainability benefits of a > for-each: unless you need the index, it's just one more place to > introduce bugs when refactoring, and it's cognitive cruft when trying to > follow what's going on. > -- > Maciek Sakrejda > Truviso, Inc. > http://www.truviso.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] speed of the "for each" looping > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:30:19 -0800 > > For each should be much slower than a basic iterator as it has to walk > the object's properties. > > > > For each (var p:* in someObject) > > > > And > > > > For (var p:String in SomeObject) > > > > Probably run at the same rate. > > > > From:[email protected] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Cato Paus > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [flexcoders] speed of the "for each" looping > > > > > Hi, all you experts :) > > I'm tying to speed up my application and I use a lot of > > exsample > for (var i:int = 0; i < 5; i++) > { > trace(i); > } > > so is the "for each" looping faster ? > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > -- > Flexcoders Mailing List > FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt > Alternative FAQ location: > https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847 > Search Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups > Links > > > > -- "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog! :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/ :: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
