Comments on: jQuery.map() in 1.6

By: Ryan Bales

Ryan Bales — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:14:29 +0000

and it’s faster http://jsperf.com/meta-testing

By: Using jQuery.map() to Map One Object To Another | Charles Bryant's Decoupled Logic

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 02:20:14 +0000

[...] http://www.learningjquery.com/2011/05/jquery-map-in-16 – actually has a deep look into .map() and .each() [...]

By: Jordan Boesch

Jordan Boesch — Tue, 24 May 2011 14:40:36 +0000

@Saeed Neamati: I believe the reason to add object support to $.map was not just to provide “an additional way to do the same thing”. It was due to the fact that passing an object to $.map was a behavior that most expected would work.

By: Saeed Neamati

Saeed Neamati — Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:16 +0000

Hi
Even if you can achieve the same result with jQuery.each(), but having alternatives for doing something is not that bad. Though, consistency may decrease and developers may loose time learning that new things are not increasing their programming power, and just provide additional ways to do the same thing.

By: Hosting Best

Hosting Best — Tue, 17 May 2011 10:37:55 +0000

Awesome! Didnt know JQuery could do this, thanks for the write up…. will be referencing back to it in the future

By: Danilo Celic

Danilo Celic — Sun, 08 May 2011 00:33:58 +0000

It seems that this code:
// make sure we're dealing with a set of non-empties ( length> 0 && elems[ 0 ] && elems[ length -1 ] )
doesn’t actually do what it says that it’s trying to do. [0,0] will make that part of the condition pass. Of course, it’ll eventually drop into the jQuery.isArray() call. Perhaps a little better:
( length > 0 && ( typeof elems[ 0 ] !== undefined ) && ( typeof elems[ length -1 ] !== undefined) )

but maybe that falls on the other side of the balance between additional logic and performance.

By: Jordan Boesch

Jordan Boesch — Wed, 04 May 2011 14:08:40 +0000

@kuindji: That is a known issue. Something that’s being pondered over due to the fact that it adding additional logic would affect performance. It’s a balancing act between performance and making sure the most common use-case is covered – which we’re assuming it won’t be common for people to pass length: 0 as an object.

By: DotNetShoutout

DotNetShoutout — Wed, 04 May 2011 13:45:40 +0000

jQuery.map() in 1.6 » Learning jQuery – Jordan Boesch…

Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from DotNetShoutout…

By: kuindji

kuindji — Wed, 04 May 2011 06:39:06 +0000

Well,

$.map({length: 0}, function(v,k) { return k; });

returns an empty array.

By: boedesign – canadian based web developer eh » Blog Archive » jQuery.map() in 1.6

Tue, 03 May 2011 21:02:55 +0000

[...] You can read my post at http://www.learningjquery.com/2011/05/jquery-map-in-16 [...]