3 ms·

Or .map() as a for..of replacement. I always wanted V8/SpiderMonkey developers to make .map()/.reduce() "pure" in the sense of "optimizing away" the expression

Or .map() as a for..of replacement. I always wanted V8/SpiderMonkey developers to make .map()/.reduce() "pure" in the sense of "optimizing away" the expression if its result is not assigned to anything, and see the world burn.

Zababa 3y ago
I think .map() as a for...of replacement makes sense for simple cases. newArray = oldArray.map(el => aFunction(el)) is short, sweet and clean.
- orra 3y ago
  It's definitely short, but are you doing it for the side effects? Then I find .map() misleading. I'd much prefer a .forEach(), or a for...of.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    If you’re mapping for side effects you deserve a good rap on the head. The main value of “map” is to denote a 1:1 data transformation. Plus this gets very fraught with many langages mapping lazily, and some not guaranteeing the order of operation.