4 ms·
Is the use of the "E" notation common in JS? I can see that it (could be) less bytes, obviously more efficient for bigger values... Looking at the script I can
by qwery 3y ago
Is the use of the "E" notation common in JS? I can see that it (could be) less bytes, obviously more efficient for bigger values... Looking at the script I can see it is minified or whatever we call that these days. I guess my question really is: did someone write "5E3" or did the minifier choose it?
(Sorry this is heading into the weeds, but I'm not really a web developer so maybe someone can tell me!)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sebzim4500 3y agoAlmost certainly the minimizer
- Dumble 3y agoTotally possible that the minifier did this, yes.
- yread 3y agoI wonder if this actually decreases the byte over wire. 5000 compresses a lot better.... sorry for OT
- brettermeier 3y agoInteresting question. Has anyone tested this?
- d3w4s9 3y agoBecause 5E3 is shorter than 5000, just like you can often see !0 to get "true" in minimize code because it saves two characters.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoIn js I thought 1==true, and 1 is shorter than !0 ?? Never seen the use of exponential notation for numbers in js though (not a surprise, I'm not really a programmer), it seems sensible to me from the point of shifting the domain from ms to seconds.
- ayhanfuat 3y ago> In js I thought 1==true, and 1 is shorter than !0 ?? `1==true` but `1!==true` (`===` and `!==` check for type equality as well and while `!0` is a boolean, `1` is not.
- the_gipsy 3y agoDouble-equals behaves differently than triple-equals. Minifiers probably can't swap them safely.
- neuromanser 3y ago!0 === true, but 1 !== true. I don't recall ever needing the strict comparison, but it seems to tickle the fancy of most js programmers.