What is the most efficient way to filter or map a nodelist in ES6?
Based on my readings, I would use one of the following options:
[...nodelist].filt
[...nodelist]
will make an array of out of an object if the object is iterable.Array.from(nodelist)
will make an array out of an object if the object is iterable or if the object is array-like (has .length
and numeric props)Your two examples will be identical if NodeList.prototype[Symbol.iterator]
exists, because both cases cover iterables. If your environment has not been configured such that NodeList
is iterable however, your first example will fail, and the second will succeed. Babel
currently does not handle this case properly.
So if your NodeList
is iterable, it is really up to you which you use. I would likely choose on a case-by-case basis. One benefit of Array.from
is that it takes a second argument of a mapping function, whereas the first [...iterable].map(item => item)
would have to create a temporary array, Array.from(iterable, item => item)
would not. If you are not mapping the list however, it does not matter.
How about this:
// Be evil. Extend the prototype.
if (window.NodeList && !NodeList.prototype.filter) {
NodeList.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter;
}
// Use it like you'd expect:
const noClasses = document
.querySelectorAll('div')
.filter(div => div.classList.length === 0)
It's the same approach as mentioned in the MDN docs for NodeList.forEach (under 'Polyfill'), it works for IE11, Edge, Chrome and FF.
TL;DR;
Array.prototype.slice.call(nodelist).filter
The slice() method returns an array.
That returned array is a shallow copy of collection (NodeList)
So it works faster than Array.from()
So it works as fast as Array.from()
Elements of the original collection are copied into the returned array as follows:
Short explanation regarding arguments
Array.prototype.slice(beginIndex, endIndex)
Array.prototype.slice.call(namespace, beginIndex, endIndex)
I found a reference that uses map
directly on the NodeList by
Array.prototype.map.call(nodelist, fn)
I haven't tested it, but it seems plausible that this would be faster because it should access the NodeList directly.