>This faster version fails on some arrays (any array that isn't contiguous). This is a bug, not a feature.
I'd argue it's actually a future.
For one, it's not forEach for one. It doesn't mask the native implementation. It exists in its own namespace.
Second, it's not like forEach doesn't have its own problems. Like not being backwards compatible to older browsers without shims.
Third, nobody (or very very small values of "somebody") use non contiguous arrays with forEach.
The speed is a great feature, especially if you don't sacrifice anything to achieve it.
>The library user is now responsible for checking that the array is contiguous before using the faster function.
The library user already knows if he is using contiguous arrays or not. After all, it can fuck him over in tons of other cases, even a simple for loop, or a length check, if he treats one like the other. So it's not like he doesn't already have to be vigilant about it.
I'd argue it's actually a future.
For one, it's not forEach for one. It doesn't mask the native implementation. It exists in its own namespace.
Second, it's not like forEach doesn't have its own problems. Like not being backwards compatible to older browsers without shims.
Third, nobody (or very very small values of "somebody") use non contiguous arrays with forEach.
The speed is a great feature, especially if you don't sacrifice anything to achieve it.
>The library user is now responsible for checking that the array is contiguous before using the faster function.
The library user already knows if he is using contiguous arrays or not. After all, it can fuck him over in tons of other cases, even a simple for loop, or a length check, if he treats one like the other. So it's not like he doesn't already have to be vigilant about it.