3 ms·

It is a bit weird to consume an iterator into an array when a NodeList is already iterable. Not sure why it caught on.

megous 4y ago
I see it a lot with other iterables, too. People may like one liners and functional style more than a procedural `for (of)` construct, so they use `[...iterable].any_array_function(...)` everywhere, except when foced not to by async code :). Might also have something to do with Redux and immutable patterns. (the use of spread operator in general)
mr_toad 4y ago
Usually it’s because you want to use an array function like .filter() that isn’t implemented by the iterable itself.
- megous 4y ago
  NodeList.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter; and you can querySelectorAll('...').filter(el => ...) without any copies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
shirogane86x 4y ago
I'm also one of those guys that will always spread NodeLists (and other iterable-but-not-array type of objects) but it's really only because I find functional style a lot more readable than imperative style for loops. It might be iterable, but if it doesn't have map/filter/reduce and friends, might as well not be for me.
- megous 4y ago
  NodeList.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter; and you can querySelectorAll('...').filter(el => ...) without any copies. ditto for other mentioned functions. Prototypal nature of Javascript is there for a reason.
  - shirogane86x 4y ago
    In every single project or company I've ever worked on/with, monkey patching was _extremely_ frowned upon (for good reasons). Also, how would you be able to filter without any copies? you'd at least be forced to make one. filter is _not_ supposed to mutate anything. so you'd have to create a new Array and/or NodeList, and put the filtered values back in. Even then, doing all this stuff for what is effectively one single copy that is likely to be insignificant at a performance level is, in my opinion, excessive. I just copy once and make the code clearer.

I see it a lot with other iterables, too. People may like one liners and functional style more than a procedural `for (of)` construct, so they use `[...iterable].any_array_function(...)` everywhere, except when foced not to by async code :). Might also have something to do with Redux and immutable patterns. (the use of spread operator in general)

mr_toad 4y ago

Usually it’s because you want to use an array function like .filter() that isn’t implemented by the iterable itself.

megous 4y ago
NodeList.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter; and you can querySelectorAll('...').filter(el => ...) without any copies.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

shirogane86x 4y ago

I'm also one of those guys that will always spread NodeLists (and other iterable-but-not-array type of objects) but it's really only because I find functional style a lot more readable than imperative style for loops. It might be iterable, but if it doesn't have map/filter/reduce and friends, might as well not be for me.

megous 4y ago
NodeList.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter; and you can querySelectorAll('...').filter(el => ...) without any copies. ditto for other mentioned functions. Prototypal nature of Javascript is there for a reason.
- shirogane86x 4y ago
  In every single project or company I've ever worked on/with, monkey patching was _extremely_ frowned upon (for good reasons). Also, how would you be able to filter without any copies? you'd at least be forced to make one. filter is _not_ supposed to mutate anything. so you'd have to create a new Array and/or NodeList, and put the filtered values back in. Even then, doing all this stuff for what is effectively one single copy that is likely to be insignificant at a performance level is, in my opinion, excessive. I just copy once and make the code clearer.