Mixing
Changing the reference of a js function's argument
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Lately I write react-redux apps and as a react developer I write pure, functional and predictable code. Even though I do like the experience I've got a doubt whether my code is still handsome or not.
So I have a tree in my state and I need to update a bunch of nodes in the tree. Let's say the tree's API provides a pure method pureUpdate(path, newNode, tree) => newTree which return new tree with the node updated. In ths case my reducer method might look like
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);
});
return tree;
}
But I'm not sure if it's the best could be done.
The first thing which looks nasty is tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);. It looks like mutating a parameter, which is discouraged, but I am just reassigning
the reference, ain't I? It's explained here in the second part of the answer. But although this trick might be ok, in this discussion said that such code might be unoptimized and reassigning parameters might cause performance issues (more info with examples). The simplest fix occured to me is to use an extra variable which will be a clone of the tree.
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
let newTree = someCloneFunc(tree);
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
newTree = pureUpdate(path, node, newTree);
});
return newTree;
}
The question is if I don't miss anything and my code is still pure, handsome and will not cause any issues.
javascript redux functional-programming
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Lately I write react-redux apps and as a react developer I write pure, functional and predictable code. Even though I do like the experience I've got a doubt whether my code is still handsome or not.
So I have a tree in my state and I need to update a bunch of nodes in the tree. Let's say the tree's API provides a pure method pureUpdate(path, newNode, tree) => newTree which return new tree with the node updated. In ths case my reducer method might look like
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);
});
return tree;
}
But I'm not sure if it's the best could be done.
The first thing which looks nasty is tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);. It looks like mutating a parameter, which is discouraged, but I am just reassigning
the reference, ain't I? It's explained here in the second part of the answer. But although this trick might be ok, in this discussion said that such code might be unoptimized and reassigning parameters might cause performance issues (more info with examples). The simplest fix occured to me is to use an extra variable which will be a clone of the tree.
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
let newTree = someCloneFunc(tree);
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
newTree = pureUpdate(path, node, newTree);
});
return newTree;
}
The question is if I don't miss anything and my code is still pure, handsome and will not cause any issues.
javascript redux functional-programming
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
2
If you want to do purely functional programming, never useforEach.
– Bergi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Lately I write react-redux apps and as a react developer I write pure, functional and predictable code. Even though I do like the experience I've got a doubt whether my code is still handsome or not.
So I have a tree in my state and I need to update a bunch of nodes in the tree. Let's say the tree's API provides a pure method pureUpdate(path, newNode, tree) => newTree which return new tree with the node updated. In ths case my reducer method might look like
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);
});
return tree;
}
But I'm not sure if it's the best could be done.
The first thing which looks nasty is tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);. It looks like mutating a parameter, which is discouraged, but I am just reassigning
the reference, ain't I? It's explained here in the second part of the answer. But although this trick might be ok, in this discussion said that such code might be unoptimized and reassigning parameters might cause performance issues (more info with examples). The simplest fix occured to me is to use an extra variable which will be a clone of the tree.
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
let newTree = someCloneFunc(tree);
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
newTree = pureUpdate(path, node, newTree);
});
return newTree;
}
The question is if I don't miss anything and my code is still pure, handsome and will not cause any issues.
javascript redux functional-programming
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
Lately I write react-redux apps and as a react developer I write pure, functional and predictable code. Even though I do like the experience I've got a doubt whether my code is still handsome or not.
So I have a tree in my state and I need to update a bunch of nodes in the tree. Let's say the tree's API provides a pure method pureUpdate(path, newNode, tree) => newTree which return new tree with the node updated. In ths case my reducer method might look like
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);
});
return tree;
}
But I'm not sure if it's the best could be done.
The first thing which looks nasty is tree = pureUpdate(path, node, tree);. It looks like mutating a parameter, which is discouraged, but I am just reassigning
the reference, ain't I? It's explained here in the second part of the answer. But although this trick might be ok, in this discussion said that such code might be unoptimized and reassigning parameters might cause performance issues (more info with examples). The simplest fix occured to me is to use an extra variable which will be a clone of the tree.
function updateNodes(tree, updateRules) {
let newTree = someCloneFunc(tree);
updateRules.forEach(updateRule => {
const { path, node } = updateRule;
newTree = pureUpdate(path, node, newTree);
});
return newTree;
}
The question is if I don't miss anything and my code is still pure, handsome and will not cause any issues.
javascript redux functional-programming
javascript redux functional-programming
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
edited Nov 19 at 14:41
MTCoster
2,08421737
2,08421737
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
asked Nov 19 at 12:12
user3272018
63331230
63331230
2
If you want to do purely functional programming, never useforEach.
– Bergi
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
If you want to do purely functional programming, never useforEach.
– Bergi
2 days ago
2
2
If you want to do purely functional programming, never use
forEach.– Bergi
2 days ago
If you want to do purely functional programming, never use
forEach.– Bergi
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you're at all concerned about performance, I would not clone tree just to avoid reassigning a parameter.
While you can use forEach here and reassign the parameter, reduce is the correct functional abstraction for your use case, and it's generally a better and more useful abstraction than forEach since it can (and should) be used purely, whereas forEach is always about side effects.
A solution based on reduce makes the question of whether or not to clone and or reassign a function parameter completely moot, as well.
Here's a working reduce solution - no parameter reassignment, no forEach side effects and no reason to clone tree:
const updateNodes = (tree, updateRules) =>
updateRules.reduce(
(acc, { path, node }) => pureUpdate(path, node, acc),
tree // initialize acc (the accumulator)
)
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you're at all concerned about performance, I would not clone tree just to avoid reassigning a parameter.
While you can use forEach here and reassign the parameter, reduce is the correct functional abstraction for your use case, and it's generally a better and more useful abstraction than forEach since it can (and should) be used purely, whereas forEach is always about side effects.
A solution based on reduce makes the question of whether or not to clone and or reassign a function parameter completely moot, as well.
Here's a working reduce solution - no parameter reassignment, no forEach side effects and no reason to clone tree:
const updateNodes = (tree, updateRules) =>
updateRules.reduce(
(acc, { path, node }) => pureUpdate(path, node, acc),
tree // initialize acc (the accumulator)
)
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you're at all concerned about performance, I would not clone tree just to avoid reassigning a parameter.
While you can use forEach here and reassign the parameter, reduce is the correct functional abstraction for your use case, and it's generally a better and more useful abstraction than forEach since it can (and should) be used purely, whereas forEach is always about side effects.
A solution based on reduce makes the question of whether or not to clone and or reassign a function parameter completely moot, as well.
Here's a working reduce solution - no parameter reassignment, no forEach side effects and no reason to clone tree:
const updateNodes = (tree, updateRules) =>
updateRules.reduce(
(acc, { path, node }) => pureUpdate(path, node, acc),
tree // initialize acc (the accumulator)
)
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you're at all concerned about performance, I would not clone tree just to avoid reassigning a parameter.
While you can use forEach here and reassign the parameter, reduce is the correct functional abstraction for your use case, and it's generally a better and more useful abstraction than forEach since it can (and should) be used purely, whereas forEach is always about side effects.
A solution based on reduce makes the question of whether or not to clone and or reassign a function parameter completely moot, as well.
Here's a working reduce solution - no parameter reassignment, no forEach side effects and no reason to clone tree:
const updateNodes = (tree, updateRules) =>
updateRules.reduce(
(acc, { path, node }) => pureUpdate(path, node, acc),
tree // initialize acc (the accumulator)
)
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
If you're at all concerned about performance, I would not clone tree just to avoid reassigning a parameter.
While you can use forEach here and reassign the parameter, reduce is the correct functional abstraction for your use case, and it's generally a better and more useful abstraction than forEach since it can (and should) be used purely, whereas forEach is always about side effects.
A solution based on reduce makes the question of whether or not to clone and or reassign a function parameter completely moot, as well.
Here's a working reduce solution - no parameter reassignment, no forEach side effects and no reason to clone tree:
const updateNodes = (tree, updateRules) =>
updateRules.reduce(
(acc, { path, node }) => pureUpdate(path, node, acc),
tree // initialize acc (the accumulator)
)
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
edited Nov 19 at 19:22
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
answered Nov 19 at 17:58
Tex
1,3741327
1,3741327
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53374396%2fchanging-the-reference-of-a-js-functions-argument%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
If you want to do purely functional programming, never use
forEach.– Bergi
2 days ago