Merge pull request #1837 from bgoonz/master

.npmrc

@@ -1 +1 @@
-{ "engines" : { "node" : ">=0.12" } }
+{ "engines" : { "node" : ">=0.15" } }

.nvmrc

@@ -1 +1 @@
-12.13.0
+14.15.0

docs/content/2015-12-29-insert-item-inside-an-array.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+title: Insert item inside an Array
+
+tip-number: 00
+tip-username: loverajoel
+tip-username-profile: https://github.com/loverajoel
+tip-tldr: Inserting an item into an existing array is a daily common task. You can add elements to the end of an array using push, to the beginning using unshift, or to the middle using splice.
+tip-writer-support: https://www.coinbase.com/loverajoel
+
+-   /en/insert-item-inside-an-array/
+
+# Inserting an item into an existing array
+
+Inserting an item into an existing array is a daily common task. You can add elements to the end of an array using push, to the beginning using unshift, or to the middle using splice.
+
+Those are known methods, but it doesn't mean there isn't a more performant way. Here we go:
+
+## Adding an element at the end
+
+Adding an element at the end of the array is easy with push(), but it can be done in different ways.
+
+```javascript
+var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
+var arr2 = [];
+
+arr.push(6);
+arr[arr.length] = 6;
+arr2 = arr.concat([6]);
+```
+
+Both first methods modify the original array. Don't believe me? Check the [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/push-item-inside-an-array)
+
+### Performance on mobile :
+
+#### Android (v4.2.2)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ and _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ have the same performance // 3 319 694 ops/sec
+2. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 50.61 % slower than the other two methods
+
+#### Chrome Mobile (v33.0.0)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 6 125 975 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 66.74 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.63 % slower
+
+#### Safari Mobile (v9)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 7 452 898 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 40.19 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 49.78 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. arr[arr.length] = 6; // with an average of 5 632 856 ops/sec
+2. arr.push(6); // 35.64 % slower
+3. arr2 = arr.concat([6]); // 62.67 % slower
+```
+
+### Performance on desktop
+
+#### Chrome (v48.0.2564)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 21 602 722 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 61.94 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.45 % slower
+
+#### Firefox (v44)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ // 56 032 805 ops/sec
+2. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ 0.52 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.36 % slower
+
+#### IE (v11)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 67 197 046 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 39.61 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 93.41 % slower
+
+#### Opera (v35.0.2066.68)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 30 775 071 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 71.60 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 83.70 % slower
+
+#### Safari (v9.0.3)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ // 42 670 978 ops/sec
+2. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ 0.80 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 76.07 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. arr[arr.length] = 6; // with an average of 42 345 449 ops/sec
+2. arr.push(6); // 34.66 % slower
+3. arr2 = arr.concat([6]); // 85.79 % slower
+```
+
+## Add an element at the beginning
+
+Now if we are trying to add an item to the beginning of the array:
+
+```javascript
+var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
+
+arr.unshift(0);
+[0].concat(arr);
+```
+
+Here is a little more detail: unshift edits the original array; concat returns a new array. [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/unshift-item-inside-an-array)
+
+### Performance on mobile :
+
+#### Android (v4.2.2)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 1 808 717 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 97.85 % slower
+
+#### Chrome Mobile (v33.0.0)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 1 269 498 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 99.86 % slower
+
+#### Safari Mobile (v9)
+
+1. _arr.unshift(0);_ // 3 250 184 ops/sec
+2. _[0].concat(arr);_ 33.67 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. [0].concat(arr); // with an average of 4 972 622 ops/sec
+2. arr.unshift(0); // 64.70 % slower
+```
+
+### Performance on desktop
+
+#### Chrome (v48.0.2564)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 2 656 685 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 96.77 % slower
+
+#### Firefox (v44)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 8 039 759 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 99.72 % slower
+
+#### IE (v11)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 3 604 226 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 98.31 % slower
+
+#### Opera (v35.0.2066.68)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 4 102 128 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 97.44 % slower
+
+#### Safari (v9.0.3)
+
+1. _arr.unshift(0);_ // 12 356 477 ops/sec
+2. _[0].concat(arr);_ 15.17 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. [0].concat(arr); // with an average of 6 032 573 ops/sec
+2. arr.unshift(0); // 78.65 % slower
+```
+
+## Add an element in the middle
+
+Adding items in the middle of an array is easy with splice, and it's the most performant way to do it.
+
+```javascript
+var items = ['one', 'two', 'three', 'four'];
+items.splice(items.length / 2, 0, 'hello');
+```
+
+I tried to run these tests in various Browsers and OS and the results were similar. I hope these tips will be useful for you and encourage to perform your own tests!

docs/content/2015-12-29-insert-item-inside-an.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+title: Insert item inside an Array
+
+tip-number: 00
+tip-username: loverajoel
+tip-username-profile: https://github.com/loverajoel
+tip-tldr: Inserting an item into an existing array is a daily common task. You can add elements to the end of an array using push, to the beginning using unshift, or to the middle using splice.
+tip-writer-support: https://www.coinbase.com/loverajoel
+
+-   /en/insert-item-inside-an-array/
+
+# Inserting an item into an existing array
+
+Inserting an item into an existing array is a daily common task. You can add elements to the end of an array using push, to the beginning using unshift, or to the middle using splice.
+
+Those are known methods, but it doesn't mean there isn't a more performant way. Here we go:
+
+## Adding an element at the end
+
+Adding an element at the end of the array is easy with push(), but it can be done in different ways.
+
+```javascript
+var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
+var arr2 = [];
+
+arr.push(6);
+arr[arr.length] = 6;
+arr2 = arr.concat([6]);
+```
+
+Both first methods modify the original array. Don't believe me? Check the [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/push-item-inside-an-array)
+
+### Performance on mobile :
+
+#### Android (v4.2.2)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ and _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ have the same performance // 3 319 694 ops/sec
+2. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 50.61 % slower than the other two methods
+
+#### Chrome Mobile (v33.0.0)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 6 125 975 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 66.74 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.63 % slower
+
+#### Safari Mobile (v9)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 7 452 898 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 40.19 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 49.78 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. arr[arr.length] = 6; // with an average of 5 632 856 ops/sec
+2. arr.push(6); // 35.64 % slower
+3. arr2 = arr.concat([6]); // 62.67 % slower
+```
+
+### Performance on desktop
+
+#### Chrome (v48.0.2564)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 21 602 722 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 61.94 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.45 % slower
+
+#### Firefox (v44)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ // 56 032 805 ops/sec
+2. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ 0.52 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 87.36 % slower
+
+#### IE (v11)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 67 197 046 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 39.61 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 93.41 % slower
+
+#### Opera (v35.0.2066.68)
+
+1. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ // 30 775 071 ops/sec
+2. _arr.push(6);_ 71.60 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 83.70 % slower
+
+#### Safari (v9.0.3)
+
+1. _arr.push(6);_ // 42 670 978 ops/sec
+2. _arr[arr.length] = 6;_ 0.80 % slower
+3. _arr2 = arr.concat([6]);_ 76.07 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. arr[arr.length] = 6; // with an average of 42 345 449 ops/sec
+2. arr.push(6); // 34.66 % slower
+3. arr2 = arr.concat([6]); // 85.79 % slower
+```
+
+## Add an element at the beginning
+
+Now if we are trying to add an item to the beginning of the array:
+
+```javascript
+var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
+
+arr.unshift(0);
+[0].concat(arr);
+```
+
+Here is a little more detail: unshift edits the original array; concat returns a new array. [jsperf](http://jsperf.com/unshift-item-inside-an-array)
+
+### Performance on mobile :
+
+#### Android (v4.2.2)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 1 808 717 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 97.85 % slower
+
+#### Chrome Mobile (v33.0.0)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 1 269 498 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 99.86 % slower
+
+#### Safari Mobile (v9)
+
+1. _arr.unshift(0);_ // 3 250 184 ops/sec
+2. _[0].concat(arr);_ 33.67 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. [0].concat(arr); // with an average of 4 972 622 ops/sec
+2. arr.unshift(0); // 64.70 % slower
+```
+
+### Performance on desktop
+
+#### Chrome (v48.0.2564)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 2 656 685 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 96.77 % slower
+
+#### Firefox (v44)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 8 039 759 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 99.72 % slower
+
+#### IE (v11)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 3 604 226 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 98.31 % slower
+
+#### Opera (v35.0.2066.68)
+
+1. _[0].concat(arr);_ // 4 102 128 ops/sec
+2. _arr.unshift(0);_ 97.44 % slower
+
+#### Safari (v9.0.3)
+
+1. _arr.unshift(0);_ // 12 356 477 ops/sec
+2. _[0].concat(arr);_ 15.17 % slower
+
+```javascript
+Final victor
+
+1. [0].concat(arr); // with an average of 6 032 573 ops/sec
+2. arr.unshift(0); // 78.65 % slower
+```
+
+## Add an element in the middle
+
+Adding items in the middle of an array is easy with splice, and it's the most performant way to do it.
+
+```javascript
+var items = ['one', 'two', 'three', 'four'];
+items.splice(items.length / 2, 0, 'hello');
+```
+
+I tried to run these tests in various Browsers and OS and the results were similar. I hope these tips will be useful for you and encourage to perform your own tests!