Vectors offer much better performance as well. Check this example from
the Adobe docs on performance optimizing Flash 10 apps:
Flash Player 10 introduced the Vector class, which allows faster read
and write access than the Array class.
A simple benchmark shows the benefits of the Vector class over the
Array class. The following code shows a benchmark for the Array class:
var coordinates:Array = new Array();
var started:Number = getTimer();
for (var i:int = 0; i< 300000; i++) {
coordinates[i] = Math.random()*1024;
}
trace(getTimer() - started); // output: 107
The following code shows a benchmark for the Vector class:
var coordinates:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>();
var started:Number = getTimer();
for (var i:int = 0; i< 300000; i++) {
coordinates[i] = Math.random()*1024;
}
trace(getTimer() - started); // output: 72
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote:
> Indeed. We jumped the gun on classes, and see where that has gotten us! :P
> (Actually, I think adopting classes, and optional and rest args and types,
> was the right thing to do, it's just too bad that they did not make it into
> ES5. But we did learn a lesson on how easy it is for a standards committee
> to change their mind.)
>
> On 2010-06-01, at 08:24, André Bargull wrote:
>
>> There is an old ES4 proposal for typed vectors, but it wasn't updated since
>> almost three years. Also see LPP-6709.
>>
>>> On 2010-06-01, at 00:15, Henry Minsky wrote:
>>>
>>> >/ In the new flash text layout package, some of the API's text engine
>>> >classes
>>> />/ require Vector arguments. Our compiler
>>> />/ doesn't understand this syntax, I assume. I think I can deal with
>>> this in
>>> />/ the kernel using #passthrough blocks where I need
>>> />/ to construct or access Vectors. Is this likely to become standard
>>> />/ javascript? Should we be supporting the
>>> />/ syntax in our script compiler? Seems a little bit of a stretch...
>>> /
>>> The only ECMA work on typed arrays that I am aware of is focusing on
>>> byte-arrays:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:typed_arrays
>>>
>>> not on arrays of arbitrary type. So, I don't think we should be trying to
>>> invent an extension here if we can avoid it. (I think that most runtimes
>>> create typed arrays for you, under the covers, as an optimization. We know
>>> for instance, that even as2 watched the keys of array and used a different
>>> implementation if all the keys were integers in a small range [we know this
>>> because there were bugs in their implementation at first].)
>>>
>>
>
>
>
