I made no claim to it being faster, but in this case the reduce method is almost twice as fast - jsbench.me/3tkttupth4/1 - at least on Chrome. On Firefox though, the situation is reversed. Different JS engines, different optimisations I guess
reduce
Faster !== Correct ... his string reverse breaks with code points, while [...str] doesn't.
[...str]
Try it: OP reverse breaks the emoji with reverse('some 💩'); while this reduce suggestion doesn't.
reverse('some 💩');
P.S.
// this works fast and correct at the same time const reverse = str => [...str].reverse().join('');
In a bid to be obnoxious 😏 you could have shortened your code further by 2 characters 🌚
const reverse = str => [...str].reverse().join``;
But who has the need in the real world / real apps to reverse a string? Nobody.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I made no claim to it being faster, but in this case the
reducemethod is almost twice as fast - jsbench.me/3tkttupth4/1 - at least on Chrome. On Firefox though, the situation is reversed. Different JS engines, different optimisations I guessFaster !== Correct ... his string reverse breaks with code points, while
[...str]doesn't.Try it: OP reverse breaks the emoji with
reverse('some 💩');while this reduce suggestion doesn't.P.S.
In a bid to be obnoxious 😏 you could have shortened your code further by 2 characters 🌚
But who has the need in the real world / real apps to reverse a string? Nobody.