Closure is as Closure does
Tags: javascript, scope, closure, frontend
Published: 2024-04-01 12:40:31

I'd like to share my experience of when to use closures and when to use more basic things.

The old joke I've come to enjoy is this, "When do Senior and Junior engineers write the same thing... When the clever function is not necessary."

Let's consider to possible solutions to using data from an Array.

```javascript
const items = [objA, objB, objC, objD];

function doStuff(obj){
    // do stuff here
}

// Version One - with a closure
items.forEach((obj) => doStuff(obj));

// Version Two - with a for loop
for(let i = 0, len = items.length; i < len; i++){
    doStuff(items[i]);
}
```

The code *does* the same thing, but there are a few differences in which actions are done *more*. The array access in version two with [] may be less efficient under the hood than having the `forEach` pre-load the items. And the creation of a function context for each iteration will be more expensive in version One because it will open a closure track all the variables involved each time.

Lets look at that last case, the creation of a closure and function context.

- Create a scope record in memory
- Retain the closure until all variables are no longer in use

By contrast, the for loop body is only ever in one place, and references one scope.

So in terms of comparing performance we have a competition of two things.

- Array access vs pre-loaded execution (this is because the item.forEach is predictable, whereas [i] can be any out of order access of an element, making it harder to optimize)
- or Function context creation for each item

It's highly likely (depending on the JavaScript implementation) that the array access being random is a far lower cost than the creation of a closure for each item.

You will also notice I've pulled out the length into a variable `len`, this is because for certain collections (such as DOM Element Collections), the length property is actually a calculation. If you have a list of DOM elements, accessing the length property will climb the elements and calculate the total length, every time the loop iteration runs, pulling out a variable will avoid this.

While the `.forEach` looks fantastic and is easy to look at, lets consider how it scales with human effort in how it is modified.

Lets introduce the idea of an *early out*, lets say we only need to run until we find 3 items.

```javascript
let elidgableThree = [];
const NEEDED_COUNT = 3;

const items = [objA, objB, objC, objD];

function doStuff(obj){
    if(obj.done){
        elidgableThree.push(obj);
    }
    return elidgableThree.length >= NEEDED_COUNT;
}

// Version One - with a closure
items.forEach((obj) => doStuff(obj));

// Version Two - with a for loop
for(let i = 0, len = items.length; i < len; i++){
    let allDone = doStuff(items[i]);
    if(allDone){
        break;
    }
}
```

Now that we have a control flow return value, it's much easier to control our code with the `for` loop than the `forEach`. This is another example of how convenience that hides ugly details can take away flexibility.

Version Two is unquestionably uglier, and also more adjustable to a variety of circumstances.