Shout out to the reduce function literally reducing limitations! 💻 #softwareengineer #javascript

[cherubinth]

JS language developers really challenged themselves to make every detail as unreliable as possible.

[dboydomr]

Why are we doing everything to avoid a simple for loop which is clear superior 🎉🎉🎉🎉

[MuhammadAhmed-pdzu]

In all honesty, when it comes to learning and sharing expertise, there isn’t need to tag, cite someone else’s content to show it wasn’t comprehensive and then show that you cracked the code of the thing, and let me show how its done. Just a personal opinion. But thank you, something new to me and JavaScript full of these swags anyways.

[Detective_Jones]

Thank you!

Keep it going YouTube recommends!!

[KadekRegen]

I will stick with traditional for loop. It works well in every languages.

[StarnikBayley]

if reduce is being used, why not just use ternary operator (a>b?a:b) instead of Math.max to save one function call to Math.max on every iteration of reduce?

[Leosch]

It's obviously bad to turn entries of a data array into function arguments.
I don't know the inner workings of JS-engines, but if the calling conventions are in any way similar to the C calling convention then you can only pass a small number of arguments through registers and most will be copied to the stack frame of the caller. You'll introduce an additional copy of the data unecessarily, you'll mess up the stack and worsen your cache hit rates

[kovacsemod]

It's probably because Math.max recurses and that's what's causing the error, not spreading the array. If that was the issue you could just use Function.prototype.apply to pass an array as arguments.

Since you're only comparing two numbers in your implementation, it would yield better performance if you just compared them a > b instead of calling Math.max.

[PatatorSupelec]

Why can't the JS max function just take an array as parameter...

[AhmedRakan-yv]

There is problem with your code too, if we passed empty array, it will throw type error, always use initial variable with reduce, in this case -inf

[flamendless]

Give any js dev a syntax for making life easier will always misuse it

[TheKnocKY]

If you have an array that big you really should be using a simple for loop as reduce will copy that array, leading to worse performance

[brettbuchanan]

Reduce is fine but it can lead to massive performance issues with large arrays if you spread a new object or array on every iteration

[m____]

Your code works only if the maximum is a positive number. In case the maximum can be negative, reduce must be initialised with negative infinity 🙂‍↔️

[LucasLocatelli]

The limitation is JavaScript itself. 😅

[QckSGaming]

Reduce creates a zillion copies. Just use a plain old for loop

[ronsijm]

Javascript has arr.reduce(Func) but doesn't have a simple arr.max(Func) function? Oh god...

[Chronologist]

Sometimes I feel like the last person who likes verbose syntax :D Like, I don't see anything wrong with just looping over the array and getting the largest element. Most languges optimize loops under the hood anyways. Obviously, getting a max is a rather trivial example, but still, is this convoluted syntax really necessary?

[Solid_Fuel]

Im stupid, so i ask. How does the overhead of the reduce function compare to normal for loops and for each loops?
Is there a sizable diffrence?
Also, does the content matter? Like comparing numbers vs comparing objects with numbers?

[miezekatze]

why does arr.reduce(Math.max) not work?