Great stuff Richard.
And great community input David.
Congrats on the Rubico library also. Keep at 'er.
I notice you have a bunch of posts on dev.to on your functional approach, so over the next little while I'll take a gander through them.
I've only read this post of yours so far, so I'm not commenting on your full body of work, but let me compare with my architectural viewpoint of a functional approach to software architecture.
As far as how things are implemented I care about these attribute, in this order...
natural language documentation
security
robustness
performance
code readability
More can be said on how those attributes interplay, but the actual implementation that gets chosen is the one that wins out on that prioritized attribute set.
So from your examples above, none of those won out. :)
I'd use the switch statement, as it uses 10 to 20 times less cycles.
After running each func 1e+6 (1 million) times....
Func
Time
Iter
cliSwitch
24.255ms
1e6
cliSwitchIncludes
46.474ms
1e6
cliIf
224.728ms
1e6
cliTernary
242.144ms
1e6
cliRubico
413.755ms
1e6
/**
@func
test switching through a set of possible flags
- input by the user from the cli
@param {string[]} args - contains the passed-in flag
*/constcliSwitch=args=>{consts=args[2];switch(s){case"-h":case"--help":l('usage: ./cli [-h] [--help] [-v] [--version]');break;case"-v":case"--version":l('v0.0.1');break;default:l('unrecognized command');}};//@teststimeInLoop("cliSwitch",1e6,()=>cliSwitch(["","","-nomatch"]));
That isPromise check should be fast.
I think your bottleneck there will be the recursion idiom.
The iterative idiom is always faster and more robust.
Any recursion can be replaced with a simple loop.
(I never use recursion, it always fails my robustness and performance tests)
However
However your non-recursive "or" func is slow verses the baseline, and so is its utility, "arrayOr", even when I pass in non-promises (which should make it take the fastest path).
constarrayOr=(fns,x)=>{constpromises=[]for(leti=0;i<fns.length;i++){constpoint=fns[i](x)if(isPromise(point))promises.push(point)elseif(point)return(promises.length>0?Promise.all(promises).then(()=>true):true)}return(promises.length>0?Promise.all(promises).then(res=>res.some(x=>x)):false)}//@teststimeInLoop("arrayOr",1e6,()=>arrayOr([()=>1,()=>2,()=>3],0))//48.216ms for 1e6
isPromise
Btw, as a little aside, I perf-compared your isPromise implementation with mine.
Now, my isPromise looks more "proper"; and is actually more robust in my robustness test (not shown here), however yours is magnificently faster, by almost 10x :-) ...
So using my "prioritized attribute set" criteria explained in my first post, if I can modify yours enough to be as robust as mine (should be easy to do with very little performance hit) I will swap the slow for the fast.
Feel free to post the source code and I'll give it a shot myself.
And yes, as I had mentioned in the Tips section of the Post I linked to above, each test must be run separately, otherwise the compiler may optimize some code by learning from the other code.
I think the problem with your code might be that your second "switchCase" is running with a lamba inside of a lamba, so the actual code you want to test does not get hit.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Here are my results...
It includes the test of the buggy one.
Note:
I ran each "timeInLoop" separately, and about 5 times each, and reported the lowest score.
import{or,switchCase}from"rubico";importtimeInLoopfrom"./timeInLoop";constisOdd=x=>x%2===1;//@perftests//isOdd: 1e+6: 10.013mstimeInLoop("isOdd",1e6,()=>isOdd(4));// isOdd_ternary: 1e+6: 9.726mstimeInLoop("isOdd_ternary",1e6,()=>{isOdd(4)?1:0});// isOdd_ifElse: 1e+6: 9.846mstimeInLoop("isOdd_ifElse",1e6,()=>{if(isOdd(4))return'odd'elsereturn'even'});// isOdd_switch: 1e+6: 9.776mstimeInLoop("isOdd_switch",1e6,()=>{switch(isOdd(4)){casetrue:return'odd'default:return'even'}});//isOdd_rubicoSwitchCase: 1e+6: 152.762mstimeInLoop("isOdd_rubicoSwitchCase",1e6,()=>{switchCase([()=>isOdd(4),()=>'odd',()=>'even'])});//@BUG: a nested lambda, the code to be perftested never executes// isOdd_rubicoSwitchCaseExtraLambda: 1e+6: 10.667mstimeInLoop("isOdd_rubicoSwitchCaseExtraLambda",1e6,()=>{()=>switchCase([isOdd,()=>'odd',()=>'even'])});
I looked into it a bit, turns out the differences we were seeing were due to mocha. I was using it to organize the benchmarks, but I see now that I should probably get closer to the ground. I'll also revise rubico's timeInLoop to model yours more closely.
Great stuff Richard.
And great community input David.
Congrats on the Rubico library also. Keep at 'er.
I notice you have a bunch of posts on dev.to on your functional approach, so over the next little while I'll take a gander through them.
I've only read this post of yours so far, so I'm not commenting on your full body of work, but let me compare with my architectural viewpoint of a functional approach to software architecture.
As far as how things are implemented I care about these attribute, in this order...
More can be said on how those attributes interplay, but the actual implementation that gets chosen is the one that wins out on that prioritized attribute set.
So from your examples above, none of those won out. :)
I'd use the switch statement, as it uses 10 to 20 times less cycles.
After running each func 1e+6 (1 million) times....
Source Code for the timeInLoop func:
gist.github.com/funfunction/91b587...
could you elaborate on natural language documentation?
Hey Richard,
I just posted an article to elaborate on that...
dev.to/functional_js/squeezing-out...
Hey Richard,
That isPromise check should be fast.
I think your bottleneck there will be the recursion idiom.
The iterative idiom is always faster and more robust.
Any recursion can be replaced with a simple loop.
(I never use recursion, it always fails my robustness and performance tests)
However
However your non-recursive "or" func is slow verses the baseline, and so is its utility, "arrayOr", even when I pass in non-promises (which should make it take the fastest path).
isPromise
Btw, as a little aside, I perf-compared your isPromise implementation with mine.
Now, my isPromise looks more "proper"; and is actually more robust in my robustness test (not shown here), however yours is magnificently faster, by almost 10x :-) ...
prioritized attribute set
So using my "prioritized attribute set" criteria explained in my first post, if I can modify yours enough to be as robust as mine (should be easy to do with very little performance hit) I will swap the slow for the fast.
Nice!
Feel free to post the source code and I'll give it a shot myself.
And yes, as I had mentioned in the Tips section of the Post I linked to above, each test must be run separately, otherwise the compiler may optimize some code by learning from the other code.
switchCase benchmarks here: github.com/a-synchronous/rubico/bl...
I think the problem with your code might be that your second "switchCase" is running with a lamba inside of a lamba, so the actual code you want to test does not get hit.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Here are my results...
It includes the test of the buggy one.
Note:
I ran each "timeInLoop" separately, and about 5 times each, and reported the lowest score.
I looked into it a bit, turns out the differences we were seeing were due to mocha. I was using it to organize the benchmarks, but I see now that I should probably get closer to the ground. I'll also revise rubico's timeInLoop to model yours more closely.
Great.
Keep up the good work, and let me know how it progresses and if you come up with more ideas.