Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!uio.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!nzpost2.xs4all.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Adding data to a function From: "Evertjan." References: Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 00:05:47 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01 Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.174.145.5 X-Trace: 1462226755 dreader36.news.xs4all.nl 4276 ehannivo/77.174.145.5:63186 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:30385 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote on 02 May 2016 in comp.lang.javascript: > The following function always would recompute > ¯window.document.getElementById( "info" )®. > > "use strict"; > > function f() > { window.document.getElementById( "info" ).innerHTML > = 'The function "f" was called.'; } > > Is it good style to attach this data to f as a property of f, > so that it does not have to be recomputed each time f is > being called, i.e.: [....] Methinks "Is it good style to ... ?" is not a good question, as it calls for subjective preferences like "is this a beautiful painting?" You could ask: "Is it clearer scripting sourcecode for newbees?" or "Does this involve less cpu-time?" Methinks, the clearer code Q is important, sometimes. The cpu-time consumption is not, as: - how many times would you want an innerHTML to change per second? - the difference in fetching a DOM-pointer from a DOM id-array or as an object-property [or even as a simple variable] will not matter much imho, but you could try to measure that for different browsers, if you like. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)