@madco
A fond believer in learning by doing 🧑💻
A fond believer in learning by doing. Loves to try out new languages in the world of computing
Want to optimize your JS-code(s)? Welp, I've got you covered! https://hasty.dev 🧑💻
Want to tweet your commits? https://gitbird.dev 🐦 It's dead I think, honestly, I haven't been keeping up with the death of the blue-bird-site 🤐
Nothing 🤝
I do love to use destructuring for most everything in my JS code-bases 🤓 But your article actually got me curious which one is actually faster 🤔 So I made a quick benchmark seems like they're pretty much on par, so I'll always go with the destructuring then 😍 - Hopefully the V8-team will increase the performance of this in the future though!
Always good with a great truncate -function! Really only thing I'd lay my finger on, is the fact, that the string now gets 3 characters longer when truncated. What I mean is, would it be better to do something like subtracting the length of the ellipsis (...) also, thus making it more compatible with, say, twitter 😇 Also, a way to improve the code maybe: function truncate ( string, limit = 160 , ellipsis = "..." ) { limit -= ellipsis.length; if (string.length >= limit) { return string.substring( 0 , limit) + ellipsis; } return string; } This way, the result will become: const t = truncate( "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" , 20 ); t // "Lorem ipsum dolor..." t.length; // 20 "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" .length; // 26 Length is now always 26 chars, instead of truncating on 26, then adding the ellipsis to the end of the string. Though, this is simply a design question! 🤓 Love the article though!
