The second code comparison is supposed to point out that the second version. Unfortunately, still not easy enough to read to avoid bugs caused by javascript's "unique" approach.
`findSmallestPositiveValue([2,11])` gives the wrong value for the supposedly better function.
> Even if the second function takes twice as long as the first, we are in the realm of nanoseconds.
How can you possibly know this? You can make either function take arbitrarily long by increasing the size of the input. The second one scales worse. I see no reason to assume an upper bound on the input size given. If you want the behavior to be obvious at a glance, just name the function what it does. Just like it already is. Or leave a block comment.
The argument here is that javascript is so fast that it doesn't matter what you write because you don't have to worry about that. I just don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that I regularly see websites that have noticeably slow javascript "startup" times.
`findSmallestPositiveValue([2,11])` gives the wrong value for the supposedly better function.
> Even if the second function takes twice as long as the first, we are in the realm of nanoseconds.
How can you possibly know this? You can make either function take arbitrarily long by increasing the size of the input. The second one scales worse. I see no reason to assume an upper bound on the input size given. If you want the behavior to be obvious at a glance, just name the function what it does. Just like it already is. Or leave a block comment.
The argument here is that javascript is so fast that it doesn't matter what you write because you don't have to worry about that. I just don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that I regularly see websites that have noticeably slow javascript "startup" times.