Speedwise there is a reason. Using a for loop has a lower runtime.

@@mattxnyce Yep, the built in array methods are substantially slower on larger arrays, quite interesting it wasn't mentioned in this video; sure it is easier to read but the performance impact can be quite severe as a lot of time people seem to be chaining these methods instead of doing a single forloop which means you can potential go into n^k territory very quickly if you aren't careful >_>

That’s a great suggestion! Thanks for sharing that

Yes! Just discovered the answer for this and it surprised the heck out of me.

@@FelixSargent pls kindly share with me

Oh very nice! I don’t think I’ve used that before!

The way you wrote it, it doesn't work. It will always store REAL LETTER COUNT + 1, as the line 'lettersCount[letter]++ will also run within the same loop iteration where it was initially assigned the value of 1.

@@jorgeluismongeblanco6933 Thanks for catching that. Indeed the initialisation should be 0 and not 1. Amending the example.

there's a good song whit that name

a bit more short version const word = 'pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' const lettersCount = {} for(const letter of word) { lettersCount[letter] = (lettersCount[letter] ?? 0) +1 }

Glad to hear it ;)

So glad to hear that!

Hahahaha yassssss! Love it

what is extension, guys?

@@tranlan4265 When you use VScode you can install extensions which help you out with your or sometimes it’s needed for some languages

Do you have those snippets/examples of what you're describing in a github to share?

Thanks destin!!

Quokka. It's the one he mentions in the beginning. It has free and paid plans, but the free version should do most of the heavy lifting.

Great point!! Maybe I’ll do a part 2

No reason to use for each when for of is more efficient,more clear and concise

@@arthasmenethil5748 actually, forEach is pretty useful because it chains with other array methods such as .map and .filter

True. I just want to point out that in some cases for-of and forEach tend to perform slower than traditional for loop

Ah great question. So, since the loadPokemon() function is defined as being async, it inherently will return a promise. This means that wherever this function is called, it will have to use await to wait for the results. So the returned promise is the promise that is created from calling Promise.all() without the await. That make sense?

@@JamesQQuick The only problem I see with this line is, that you time it before the promise is resolved due to the missing await and thus the timing does not include the parsing of the results. One additional optimization you could do, would be to move the .json() calls into the previous Promise.all in chained .then() calls, as each .json() call can be performed once the corresponding fetch resolves and there is no need to wait until all fetches are resolved.

@@registerbnar7884 Oh shoot you're right! Dang I botched that part. Great callout!!

If you're taking performance into account here, the indexOf function would have the same performance as iterating through a loop that includes a break to short-circuit after it's found

Thanks for watching!!

Glad you enjoyed it!!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Still reasoning about it. Does each loop represent a distinct "stack" so that "const letter = word[i]" is an nth amount of declaration for the length/size of the cycle? Does it make sense what I'm asking? 😃

@@k16e For 2., that's it, each iteration of the loop has it's own set of variables (it's own scope), that's why you can declare letter as const. For 1., it's typical when you are learning to see that kind of syntax and think it's magic, happened to me as well. But the fact is that it's just taking advantage of JS features. You can use strings to declare properties(keys) on an object, instead of using the dot. For example: let person = {}; person["name"] = "John" // Person is now {name: "John"} As you can derive from this, inside the brackets you just pass a string, so that string can come from anywhere. let person = {}; let prop = "name" person[prop] = "John" // Person is now {name: "John"} The next step is to see, you are iterating over an array of strings, and using their values directly to create and access keys of an object, it's plain Javascript, no magic involved :)

@@inakiarias7465 Much gratitude for taking the time to clarify. Thanks

probably but you shouldnt care about it until it is a problem

To be honest, quite a noticeable performance hit. If you are worried about performance, use a for loop.

It's not inside of a function in that case, but yes.

Yes, reduce is a very handy tool!

Yeah that stuff is tricky to follow. I’m thinking about doing a specific follow up on Promise.all

Maybe I’ll do future videos on more loops!

You can find info about my setup in my uses page. www.jamesqquick.com/uses/

You can change that is settings

Yep it’s just a setting in vs code!

shades of purple

Most likely, it's Shades of Purple. The only useful thing here.

Hahaha das ist richtig :)

@@JamesQQuick Hauptreichseisenbahnknotenpunkthinundhirschieber

Not sure what you mean there?

@@JamesQQuick he means it's best practice to declare and assign your array.length. There's a noticeable performance boost gained by doing so.

@@mattxnyce Is that true though? The length property can be accessed in constant time, so in terms of BigO, you're adding negligible overhead? Maybe I'm wrong?

@@JamesQQuick I wish I understood why so I could explain it to you. There's a weird way of writing it. let i = 0 let len = array.len for(; i < len; i++){ // stuff }

@@mattxnyce Yeah I get what the code would be if you did that. I just don't quite understand why the performance implication if accessing .length takes constant time.

Adding it to the backlog!