Associative array

[Robert]

I am curious why some people feel that Javascript doesn't have
associative arrays. I got these definitions of associative arrays via
goggle:

Arrays in which the indices may be numbers or strings, not just
sequential integers in a fixed range.
www.sunsite.ualberta.ca/Documentation/Gnu/gawk-3.1.0/html_chapter/gawk_20.html

(n.) A collection of data (an array) where individual items can be
indexed (accessed) by a string, rather than by an integer as is common
in most programming languages.
docs.sun.com/db/doc/805-4368/6j450e60a

(n.) A collection of data (an array) where individual items may be
indexed (accessed) by a string, rather than by an integer as is common
in most programming languages.
www.npac.syr.edu/nse/hpccgloss/hpccgloss.html

Another name for a dictionary.
academics.tjhsst.edu/compsci/thinkCS/chap19/node11.html


My goggle search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Associative+Array


It seems to me that both javascript arrays and object meet these
definitions.

One problem with Javascript would be the extra indexes automatically
created but you can check for them if you need too.
Maybe I am missing something.

Robert

 

[Randy Webb]

I am curious why some people feel that Javascript doesn't have
associative arrays.

Because Javascript, JScript nor ECMAScript have associative arrays.

Pretty good reason don't you think?

 

[Michael Winter]

I am curious why some people feel that Javascript doesn't have
associative arrays.

The behaviour has nothing to do with arrays. The misconception arises
because "associative arrays" are introduced thus:

var arr = new Array();

arr['name'] = 'value';

However, you can't apply any Array method to that object and expect it to
act upon 'name' as it's not part of the array; it's part of the object
itself. The same outcome is achieved with:

arr.name = 'value';

The main difference between the two approaches is that with dot notation,
each token must conform to the rules of an identifier. With square bracket
notation, the operand is any valid expression.

I presume that many script authors are unaware that you can use square
brackets to construct property names because the fact that this is what
you're actually doing - accessing object properties - is never discussed.
It's hidden among this illusion.

The fact of the matter is: ECMAScript does not have them. To produce a
robust system of storage you have to write at least *some* supporting
code, which immediately draws attention to the fact that ECMAScript
doesn't provide this functionality natively.

If it helps in some way to think of associative arrays, fine. However,
make sure you know what is really happening behind the scenes.

[snip]

docs.sun.com/db/doc/805-4368/6j450e60a

When posting URLs, please post them in full. Preferably surrounded by
<URL:...>:

<URL:http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/805-4368/6j450e60a>

[snip]

It seems to me that both javascript arrays and object meet these
definitions.

Loosely, perhaps. However, these terms are applied to languages which
feature arrays that can be indexed by strings and numbers. You just aren't
doing that with ECMAScript: an array is *just* an array.

One problem with Javascript would be the extra indexes automatically
created

[Aside]
It's interesting to see you refer to the "extra indexes". Either that's a
Freudian slip, or potential proof of the misconception I mentioned earlier.
[/Aside]

but you can check for them if you need too.

How? You can't enumerate them, and you can never be sure of all of the
properties and methods that will be present. It's best to avoid the issue
entirely by modifying the name you use so that it will never clash with an
existing property.

[snip]

Mike

 

[Martin Bialasinski]

The behaviour has nothing to do with arrays. The misconception arises
because "associative arrays" are introduced thus:

var arr = new Array();

arr['name'] = 'value';

Maybe one can show the misconception like this:

var arr = new Array();

(1) arr['name'] = 'value';

Now it looks like one added a key/value pair to a hash.

Array() has methods like pop() or push(), lets give the "hash datatype"
some as well.

(2) arr['keys'] = getkeys; // function defined elsewhere
// The same as arr.keys = getkeys

so now, arr.keys() should get the keys of the hash.

But wait:

arr['foo'] = bar is the way to add a key/value pair.

So (2) should just do this and the hash should contain

'name' = 'value'
'keys' = getkeys

But this is wrong as well.

'keys' should not be a data of the hash. It should be a method like
pop() for accessing the data of a hash.

And yes, it is perfectly OK for a hash to hold functions.


So this is a conflict it the alleged semantics of these
assignment. The reason for the conflict is, that there is no native
hash type in Javascript.

Bye,
Martin

 

[codeHanger]

The behaviour has nothing to do with arrays. The misconception arises

because "associative arrays" are introduced thus:

<..>

Then again associative arrays have nothing to do with arrays either,
other than they evolved as an extension. Whereas arrays in the standard
definition have only numerical indexes, associative arrays came into
existence through removal of that restriction. Along with that
extension, the concept of ordering based on indexes which is inherent
in a standard array, is also removed.

Even though not defined as such in the language specification, it
doesn't preclude associative arrays from being considered to be an
abstract data type. Therefore, the presence (or absence) of associative
arrays can be shown through (failure to display) characteristic
manifestation. As the purpose behind the abstraction is to separate
external form and functionality from implementation, it is prudent to
dispense with notions that have anything to do with a particular form
of internal construct or implementation that may underlay.[1]

As abstract data types, associative arrays have relatively simple form
and functionality determinants. They are:
___

Arbitrary keys associated with single values, along with four
operations: add, change, remove, and lookup [2]
___

It's pretty clear that, outside of a relatively small (possibly
indeterminate) number of pre-defined key-values on instantiation,
instances of Object conform quite well to the above.

Regarding the pre-defined values, however, the 'add' operation doesn't
convert an associative array into something which is not an associative
array. Therefore this isn't an issue that has to do with existence of
associative arrays, but rather has to do with expectations regarding
initial content [3].

So there are those who wish to say that Javascript does not have
associative arrays, and others who say, at least conceptually and
functionally, that it does. Both may be correct, but neither should be
stated with out appropriate qualification.

If it helps in some way to think of associative arrays, fine.
However, make sure you know what is really happening behind the

scenes.

<..>

I think that's a remarkably fine and fair comment!

Regards,

.../rh

[1] A hash imposes upon implementation, thus is an associative array,
but not an ADT
[2] Note the absence of enumeration
[3] Object.prototype is an exception regarding transformation
operations

 

[Robert]

Because Javascript, JScript nor ECMAScript have associative arrays.

You seem to be looking for specialized declare in Javascript for
associative arrays. I am looking at the functionality of javascript.

The definition of associative arrays doesn't require any specialize
declaration.

var a = [ ];
a["abc"] = "data";
alert(a["abc"]);

// I do not see how this isn't fine associative array syntax either.
var new = a.abc;

The above is allowed in Javascript and meets the definition of
associative arrays as found by google.

Therefor for what I know about associtive arrays, Javascript has
associative arrays (with the note about extra properties).

....

I find it misleading to read posts in this forum that Javascript
doesn't have associative arrays. These statements need to be qualified
at a minimum.

Robert

 

[John G Harris]

I am curious why some people feel that Javascript doesn't have
associative arrays.

One reason is that there are two meanings and no-one knows which is
being used. 'Associative array' can describe a very general kind of
storage unit, just as 'stack' can be a very general description.
Alternatively, 'associative array' can be a particular data type
supplied as part of a computer language. You can get some lovely
never-ending arguments if people are using these different meanings.

I got these definitions of associative arrays via
goggle:

Arrays in which the indices may be numbers or strings, not just
sequential integers in a fixed range.
www.sunsite.ualberta.ca/Documentation/Gnu/gawk-3.1.0/html_chapter/gawk_20.html

(n.) A collection of data (an array) where individual items can be
indexed (accessed) by a string, rather than by an integer as is common
in most programming languages.
docs.sun.com/db/doc/805-4368/6j450e60a

(n.) A collection of data (an array) where individual items may be
indexed (accessed) by a string, rather than by an integer as is common
in most programming languages.
www.npac.syr.edu/nse/hpccgloss/hpccgloss.html

Back in the 60s when people were discussing hardware associative arrays
the 'address', or key, or index, was just a bit pattern supplied by the
user. The user might think it was ASCII characters or a floating point
number or whatever, but the hardware couldn't care less.

When an associative array is implemented in software the 'address' has
to be a defined type so the compiler/interpreter knows how to allocate
the right amount of storage when creating a cell, but it still isn't
restricted to integers and strings.

Another name for a dictionary.
academics.tjhsst.edu/compsci/thinkCS/chap19/node11.html

A dictionary is a particular kind of associative array. The 'address' is
a word; the value is a chunk of text.

But then people have used 'dictionary' in a more general way. 'Map' is
another popular name.

My goggle search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Associative+Array


It seems to me that both javascript arrays and object meet these
definitions.

One problem with Javascript would be the extra indexes automatically
created but you can check for them if you need too.
Maybe I am missing something.

True. Both Object objects and Array objects have their good points and
their bad points if your javascript application needs to implement an
associative array.

John