Is there a better way to do partial sums of array items in JavaScript?Is there a functional way to init an array in JavaScript ES6?What is the most efficient way to deep clone an object in JavaScript?How do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?What's the simplest way to print a Java array?How to insert an item into an array at a specific index (JavaScript)?How do you check if a variable is an array in JavaScript?How do I empty an array in JavaScript?Loop through an array in JavaScriptHow do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How can I add new array elements at the beginning of an array in Javascript?For-each over an array in JavaScript?

Does ultrasonic bath cleaning damage laboratory volumetric glassware calibration?

What is the olden name for sideburns?

In native German words, is Q always followed by U, as in English?

Reverse of diffraction

When is it ok to add filler to a story?

For people who believe in Jesus and not the devil, what happend in the desert?

How hard is it to sell a home which is currently mortgaged?

Was it really unprofessional of me to leave without asking for a raise first?

Are there any vegetarian astronauts?

How fast can a ship with rotating habitats be accelerated?

Do we or do we not observe (measure) superpositions all the time?

Generate and graph the Recamán Sequence

How can I bypass the confirmation for granting permissions to files or folders?

Coefficients of the characteristic polynomial

What's the safest way to inform a new user of their password on my web site?

Alphabet completion rate

Difference between 'demás' and 'otros'?

Could Sauron have read Tom Bombadil's mind if Tom had held the Palantir?

Can a single server be associated with multiple domains?

Does a centaur PC also count as being mounted?

In the context of a differentiator circuit, what is a “current-sensing resistor”?

What is a macro? Difference between macro and function?

How to convert object fill in to fine lines?

Why transcripts instead of degree certificates?



Is there a better way to do partial sums of array items in JavaScript?


Is there a functional way to init an array in JavaScript ES6?What is the most efficient way to deep clone an object in JavaScript?How do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?What's the simplest way to print a Java array?How to insert an item into an array at a specific index (JavaScript)?How do you check if a variable is an array in JavaScript?How do I empty an array in JavaScript?Loop through an array in JavaScriptHow do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How can I add new array elements at the beginning of an array in Javascript?For-each over an array in JavaScript?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








21















I wonder if there is a better way of generating a better performing solution for partial sums of an array.



Given an array say x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ], I generated sub-arrays of the items, and then computed the sum of each array which gives:



[ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]


So the full code is:



x.map((y,i)=>x.filter((t,j)=>j<=i))
.map(ii=>ii.reduce((x,y)=>x+y,0))


I wonder if flat map or some other array method will have a solution that does not require expanding each subarray.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    Jun 10 at 0:37

















21















I wonder if there is a better way of generating a better performing solution for partial sums of an array.



Given an array say x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ], I generated sub-arrays of the items, and then computed the sum of each array which gives:



[ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]


So the full code is:



x.map((y,i)=>x.filter((t,j)=>j<=i))
.map(ii=>ii.reduce((x,y)=>x+y,0))


I wonder if flat map or some other array method will have a solution that does not require expanding each subarray.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    Jun 10 at 0:37













21












21








21


1






I wonder if there is a better way of generating a better performing solution for partial sums of an array.



Given an array say x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ], I generated sub-arrays of the items, and then computed the sum of each array which gives:



[ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]


So the full code is:



x.map((y,i)=>x.filter((t,j)=>j<=i))
.map(ii=>ii.reduce((x,y)=>x+y,0))


I wonder if flat map or some other array method will have a solution that does not require expanding each subarray.










share|improve this question
















I wonder if there is a better way of generating a better performing solution for partial sums of an array.



Given an array say x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ], I generated sub-arrays of the items, and then computed the sum of each array which gives:



[ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]


So the full code is:



x.map((y,i)=>x.filter((t,j)=>j<=i))
.map(ii=>ii.reduce((x,y)=>x+y,0))


I wonder if flat map or some other array method will have a solution that does not require expanding each subarray.







javascript arrays functional-programming prefix-sum






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jun 10 at 14:22









qwr

2,5933 gold badges24 silver badges48 bronze badges




2,5933 gold badges24 silver badges48 bronze badges










asked Jun 10 at 0:11









Patrick Francis OmogbemePatrick Francis Omogbeme

1065 bronze badges




1065 bronze badges







  • 3





    By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    Jun 10 at 0:37












  • 3





    By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    Jun 10 at 0:37







3




3





By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 10 at 0:37





By the way, this is called prefix-sum or scan. Many collections frameworks have it in the standard library, but unfortunately ECMAScript does not.

– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 10 at 0:37












10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















18














Much, by keeping a running total:






function* partialSums(iterable) 
let s = 0;

for (const x of iterable)
s += x;
yield s;



const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





Linear time, online. (You can also produce an array directly; expand below.)






const partialSums = arr => 
let s = 0;
return arr.map(x => s += x);
;

const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));








share|improve this answer




















  • 6





    Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

    – LogicalBranch
    Jun 10 at 15:13






  • 1





    @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 15:14







  • 3





    @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

    – spender
    Jun 10 at 19:20












  • @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

    – HSchmale
    Jun 11 at 2:28






  • 1





    This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

    – bob
    Jun 11 at 11:26


















5














The flat map won't be useful in your case, because you're not trying to flatten your partial results coming as lists, but we can probably try to resolve your problem in a single reduce:



[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
.reduce(
([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
const next = sum + el
return [[...arr, next], next]
,
[[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
)[0] // Array containing array and the last sum is returned, so we need to take only the first element


It also iterates the array only once, so it might be a little more performant, than a solution creating slices and then summing them.



Or a version with array.push, which reuses same array:



[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
.reduce(
([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
const next = sum + el
arr.push(next)
return [arr, next]
,
[[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
)[0]





share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 15:15






  • 1





    @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

    – Krzysztof Atłasik
    Jun 10 at 15:48






  • 2





    Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 15:51






  • 1





    @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

    – Krzysztof Atłasik
    Jun 10 at 15:54



















5














Below, scan takes a mapping function f and an initial accumulator r -






const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
x === undefined
? [ r ]
: [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

const add = (x, y) =>
x + y

const print = (...vs) =>
vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

const data =
[ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

print
( scan (add, 0, data)
, scan (Math.max, 3, data)
, scan (add, 0, [])
)

// [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
// [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
// [ 0 ]





If you need a program that does not take an initial accumulator, the first element of the input array can be used instead. This variation is called scan1 -






const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
x === undefined
? [ r ]
: [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
x === undefined
? []
: scan (f, x, xs)

const add = (x, y) =>
x + y

const print = (...vs) =>
vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

const data =
[ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

print
( scan1 (add, data)
, scan1 (Math.max, data)
, scan1 (Math.min, data)
, scan1 (add, [])
)

// [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
// [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
// [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
// []






Performance optimisations can be made and stack-overflow woes can be remedied, if necessary, all without sacrificing functional style -



const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
loop
( ( r = []
, a = init
, i = 0
) =>
i >= xs.length
? push (a, r)
: recur
( push (a, r)
, f (a, xs[i])
, i + 1
)
)


Now let's run it with a big input -



// BIG data!
const data =
Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

// fast and stack-safe
console .time ("scan")
const result = scan (add, 0, data)
console .timeEnd ("scan")
// scan: 8.07 ms

console .log (result)
// [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49985001 ]


This depends on the following generic functional procedures -



const recur = (...values) =>
( recur, values )

const loop = f =>
let r = f ()
while (r && r.recur === recur)
r = f (...r.values)
return r


const push = (x, xs) =>
( xs .push (x)
, xs
)


Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your own browser -






const recur = (...values) =>
( recur, values )

const loop = f =>
let r = f ()
while (r && r.recur === recur)
r = f (...r.values)
return r


const push = (x, xs) =>
( xs .push (x)
, xs
)

const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
loop
( ( r = []
, a = init
, i = 0
) =>
i >= xs.length
? push (a, r)
: recur
( push (a, r)
, f (a, xs[i])
, i + 1
)
)

const add = (x, y) =>
x + y

const data =
Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

console .time ("scan")
const result = scan (add, 0, data)
console .timeEnd ("scan")

console .log (result)
// [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]








share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 15:48







  • 2





    @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

    – user633183
    Jun 10 at 16:34







  • 1





    [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 16:41







  • 6





    Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 16:50







  • 1





    @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 19:07


















3














You can simply use a for loop with a variable to keep track of the last sum






let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

let sum = (arr) =>
let sum = 0
let final = []
for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
sum+= arr[i]
final.push(sum)

return final


console.log(sum(x))





You can also use map:






let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

let sum = (arr) =>
let sum = 0
return arr.map(current => sum += current )


console.log(sum(x))








share|improve this answer

























  • That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

    – Ry-
    Jun 10 at 15:15











  • @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

    – Code Maniac
    Jun 10 at 16:13


















3














You just need to add in every step the current value to the previous result, so you could use a simple reduce.






const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
acc.push(prev + current);
return acc;
,[]);

console.log(sums.toString());








share|improve this answer






























    3














    If you asking is there a faster or more efficient way then the other answers are sufficient.



    However, I'd argue that something similar to your current solution is easier to read and more declarative if we phrase it as a mapping function.



    Specifically something like "Map each value to itself plus all the previous values in the array".



    You could use a filter, as you have done in your question, but i think a slice is clearer.



    const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

    // A common generic helper function
    const sum = (acc, val) => acc + val

    const sums = x.map((val, i, self) => val + self.slice(0, i).reduce(sum, 0))





    share|improve this answer























    • This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:46












    • The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

      – Steve
      Jun 10 at 16:20


















    1














    It's possible to use map directly, if you keep an external accumulator variable:




    const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

    let acc = 0;
    const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

    console.log(prefixSum);








    share|improve this answer























    • Clever trick with assignment expression.

      – LiuXiMin
      Jun 15 at 8:53


















    0














    One option is to use a single .map which uses .reduce inside to sum up the sliced partial array:






    const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

    const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
    const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
    console.log(partialSums);








    share|improve this answer






























      -1














      Here is a simple answer using a recursive function.



      var array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

      function sumArray(arrayToSum, index)
      if(index < arrayToSum.length-1)
      arrayToSum[index+1] = arrayToSum[index] + arrayToSum[index+1];
      return sumArray(arrayToSum, index+1);
      else
      return arrayToSum;


      sumArray(array, 0);

      console.log(array);





      share|improve this answer


















      • 2





        This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

        – Peter Cordes
        Jun 10 at 18:19


















      -1














      A way can be to use for each and then slice the arrays to get the elements one by one and then sum them all by array.reduce You can do this like






      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      let sum = []
      x.forEach((_, index) =>
      index++;
      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
      )
      console.log(sum)





      We are getting [0] then [0,1] then [0,1,2] then [0,1,2,3] and via [0,1,2].reduce((a, b) => a + b)) we get 3. Just push that to a new array. Which is your answer.



      We can go even shorter by doing this. To me, this seems a very optimized solution.






      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      let s = 0
      let arr = []
      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
      console.log(arr)





      Now what this does is we take a variable and then add the values to it and then simply push that to the array.






      share|improve this answer

























      • “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 18:27












      • Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

        – weegee
        Jun 10 at 18:32







      • 1





        There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:14






      • 1





        No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:50






      • 1





        @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

        – weegee
        Jun 10 at 19:57













      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      );
      );
      , "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56519255%2fis-there-a-better-way-to-do-partial-sums-of-array-items-in-javascript%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      10 Answers
      10






      active

      oldest

      votes








      10 Answers
      10






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      18














      Much, by keeping a running total:






      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      Linear time, online. (You can also produce an array directly; expand below.)






      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));








      share|improve this answer




















      • 6





        Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

        – LogicalBranch
        Jun 10 at 15:13






      • 1





        @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:14







      • 3





        @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

        – spender
        Jun 10 at 19:20












      • @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

        – HSchmale
        Jun 11 at 2:28






      • 1





        This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

        – bob
        Jun 11 at 11:26















      18














      Much, by keeping a running total:






      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      Linear time, online. (You can also produce an array directly; expand below.)






      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));








      share|improve this answer




















      • 6





        Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

        – LogicalBranch
        Jun 10 at 15:13






      • 1





        @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:14







      • 3





        @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

        – spender
        Jun 10 at 19:20












      • @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

        – HSchmale
        Jun 11 at 2:28






      • 1





        This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

        – bob
        Jun 11 at 11:26













      18












      18








      18







      Much, by keeping a running total:






      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      Linear time, online. (You can also produce an array directly; expand below.)






      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));








      share|improve this answer















      Much, by keeping a running total:






      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      Linear time, online. (You can also produce an array directly; expand below.)






      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));








      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      function* partialSums(iterable) 
      let s = 0;

      for (const x of iterable)
      s += x;
      yield s;



      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(Array.from(partialSums(x)).join(', '));





      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));





      const partialSums = arr => 
      let s = 0;
      return arr.map(x => s += x);
      ;

      const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
      console.log(partialSums(x).join(', '));






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      answered Jun 10 at 0:34


























      community wiki





      Ry-








      • 6





        Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

        – LogicalBranch
        Jun 10 at 15:13






      • 1





        @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:14







      • 3





        @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

        – spender
        Jun 10 at 19:20












      • @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

        – HSchmale
        Jun 11 at 2:28






      • 1





        This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

        – bob
        Jun 11 at 11:26












      • 6





        Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

        – LogicalBranch
        Jun 10 at 15:13






      • 1





        @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:14







      • 3





        @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

        – spender
        Jun 10 at 19:20












      • @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

        – HSchmale
        Jun 11 at 2:28






      • 1





        This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

        – bob
        Jun 11 at 11:26







      6




      6





      Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

      – LogicalBranch
      Jun 10 at 15:13





      Urgh... yield is such a weak word. Add each item to an array and return it like a man.

      – LogicalBranch
      Jun 10 at 15:13




      1




      1





      @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:14






      @LogicalBranch: That wouldn’t be online, so you may as well use the second code snippet then.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:14





      3




      3





      @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

      – spender
      Jun 10 at 19:20






      @LogicalBranch Why? Iterators FTW in 2019, no?

      – spender
      Jun 10 at 19:20














      @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

      – HSchmale
      Jun 11 at 2:28





      @LogicalBranch Iterators are the way to go when doing partial sums if you have a large array or you only needs up to a certain value. Why do you dislike yield? I know it's not as in your face as return but it is descriptive of what it's doing.

      – HSchmale
      Jun 11 at 2:28




      1




      1





      This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

      – bob
      Jun 11 at 11:26





      This is a nice imperative answer, However, it doesn't fit a question tagged with functional programming. This is merely a 1:1 alloction of a specific helper function to a very specific problem. Zero generalization, nothing learned.

      – bob
      Jun 11 at 11:26













      5














      The flat map won't be useful in your case, because you're not trying to flatten your partial results coming as lists, but we can probably try to resolve your problem in a single reduce:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      return [[...arr, next], next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0] // Array containing array and the last sum is returned, so we need to take only the first element


      It also iterates the array only once, so it might be a little more performant, than a solution creating slices and then summing them.



      Or a version with array.push, which reuses same array:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      arr.push(next)
      return [arr, next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0]





      share|improve this answer




















      • 1





        This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15






      • 1





        @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:48






      • 2





        Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:51






      • 1





        @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:54
















      5














      The flat map won't be useful in your case, because you're not trying to flatten your partial results coming as lists, but we can probably try to resolve your problem in a single reduce:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      return [[...arr, next], next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0] // Array containing array and the last sum is returned, so we need to take only the first element


      It also iterates the array only once, so it might be a little more performant, than a solution creating slices and then summing them.



      Or a version with array.push, which reuses same array:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      arr.push(next)
      return [arr, next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0]





      share|improve this answer




















      • 1





        This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15






      • 1





        @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:48






      • 2





        Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:51






      • 1





        @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:54














      5












      5








      5







      The flat map won't be useful in your case, because you're not trying to flatten your partial results coming as lists, but we can probably try to resolve your problem in a single reduce:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      return [[...arr, next], next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0] // Array containing array and the last sum is returned, so we need to take only the first element


      It also iterates the array only once, so it might be a little more performant, than a solution creating slices and then summing them.



      Or a version with array.push, which reuses same array:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      arr.push(next)
      return [arr, next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0]





      share|improve this answer















      The flat map won't be useful in your case, because you're not trying to flatten your partial results coming as lists, but we can probably try to resolve your problem in a single reduce:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      return [[...arr, next], next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0] // Array containing array and the last sum is returned, so we need to take only the first element


      It also iterates the array only once, so it might be a little more performant, than a solution creating slices and then summing them.



      Or a version with array.push, which reuses same array:



      [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
      .reduce(
      ([arr, sum], el) => // We pass along array and running sum
      const next = sum + el
      arr.push(next)
      return [arr, next]
      ,
      [[], 0] // We need to seed our reduce with empty array and accumulator for calculating running sum
      )[0]






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jun 10 at 15:53

























      answered Jun 10 at 6:56









      Krzysztof AtłasikKrzysztof Atłasik

      9,2572 gold badges17 silver badges45 bronze badges




      9,2572 gold badges17 silver badges45 bronze badges







      • 1





        This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15






      • 1





        @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:48






      • 2





        Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:51






      • 1





        @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:54













      • 1





        This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15






      • 1





        @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:48






      • 2





        Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:51






      • 1





        @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

        – Krzysztof Atłasik
        Jun 10 at 15:54








      1




      1





      This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:15





      This will be equally slow (O(n²)) since it copies the array each time it wants to add something to it.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:15




      1




      1





      @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

      – Krzysztof Atłasik
      Jun 10 at 15:48





      @Ry- you can easily replace it with push, but it will be mutating array, which would make it not purely functional. Have you seen tag functional-programming on question?

      – Krzysztof Atłasik
      Jun 10 at 15:48




      2




      2





      Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:51





      Nothing is purely functional. You own the array. It’s completely fine.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:51




      1




      1





      @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

      – Krzysztof Atłasik
      Jun 10 at 15:54






      @Ry- Not really, you can have purely functional methods. But as you mentioned, a version using push is referentially transparent, so it's also fine. Edited my answer to include the second version.

      – Krzysztof Atłasik
      Jun 10 at 15:54












      5














      Below, scan takes a mapping function f and an initial accumulator r -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      If you need a program that does not take an initial accumulator, the first element of the input array can be used instead. This variation is called scan1 -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []






      Performance optimisations can be made and stack-overflow woes can be remedied, if necessary, all without sacrificing functional style -



      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )


      Now let's run it with a big input -



      // BIG data!
      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      // fast and stack-safe
      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")
      // scan: 8.07 ms

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49985001 ]


      This depends on the following generic functional procedures -



      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )


      Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your own browser -






      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]








      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:48







      • 2





        @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

        – user633183
        Jun 10 at 16:34







      • 1





        [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:41







      • 6





        Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:50







      • 1





        @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:07















      5














      Below, scan takes a mapping function f and an initial accumulator r -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      If you need a program that does not take an initial accumulator, the first element of the input array can be used instead. This variation is called scan1 -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []






      Performance optimisations can be made and stack-overflow woes can be remedied, if necessary, all without sacrificing functional style -



      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )


      Now let's run it with a big input -



      // BIG data!
      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      // fast and stack-safe
      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")
      // scan: 8.07 ms

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49985001 ]


      This depends on the following generic functional procedures -



      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )


      Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your own browser -






      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]








      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:48







      • 2





        @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

        – user633183
        Jun 10 at 16:34







      • 1





        [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:41







      • 6





        Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:50







      • 1





        @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:07













      5












      5








      5







      Below, scan takes a mapping function f and an initial accumulator r -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      If you need a program that does not take an initial accumulator, the first element of the input array can be used instead. This variation is called scan1 -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []






      Performance optimisations can be made and stack-overflow woes can be remedied, if necessary, all without sacrificing functional style -



      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )


      Now let's run it with a big input -



      // BIG data!
      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      // fast and stack-safe
      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")
      // scan: 8.07 ms

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49985001 ]


      This depends on the following generic functional procedures -



      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )


      Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your own browser -






      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]








      share|improve this answer















      Below, scan takes a mapping function f and an initial accumulator r -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      If you need a program that does not take an initial accumulator, the first element of the input array can be used instead. This variation is called scan1 -






      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []






      Performance optimisations can be made and stack-overflow woes can be remedied, if necessary, all without sacrificing functional style -



      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )


      Now let's run it with a big input -



      // BIG data!
      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      // fast and stack-safe
      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")
      // scan: 8.07 ms

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49985001 ]


      This depends on the following generic functional procedures -



      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )


      Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your own browser -






      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]








      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan (add, 0, data)
      , scan (Math.max, 3, data)
      , scan (add, 0, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0 ]





      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []





      const scan = (f, r, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? [ r ]
      : [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ]

      const scan1 = (f, [ x, ...xs ]) =>
      x === undefined
      ? []
      : scan (f, x, xs)

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const print = (...vs) =>
      vs .forEach (v => console .log (v))

      const data =
      [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      print
      ( scan1 (add, data)
      , scan1 (Math.max, data)
      , scan1 (Math.min, data)
      , scan1 (add, [])
      )

      // [ 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 ]
      // [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
      // [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
      // []





      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]





      const recur = (...values) =>
      ( recur, values )

      const loop = f =>
      let r = f ()
      while (r && r.recur === recur)
      r = f (...r.values)
      return r


      const push = (x, xs) =>
      ( xs .push (x)
      , xs
      )

      const scan = (f, init, xs) =>
      loop
      ( ( r = []
      , a = init
      , i = 0
      ) =>
      i >= xs.length
      ? push (a, r)
      : recur
      ( push (a, r)
      , f (a, xs[i])
      , i + 1
      )
      )

      const add = (x, y) =>
      x + y

      const data =
      Array .from (Array (10000), (_, x) => x)

      console .time ("scan")
      const result = scan (add, 0, data)
      console .timeEnd ("scan")

      console .log (result)
      // [ 0, 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ..., 49995000 ]






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jun 10 at 19:43

























      answered Jun 10 at 1:44









      user633183user633183

      75k21 gold badges147 silver badges190 bronze badges




      75k21 gold badges147 silver badges190 bronze badges







      • 3





        scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:48







      • 2





        @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

        – user633183
        Jun 10 at 16:34







      • 1





        [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:41







      • 6





        Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:50







      • 1





        @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:07












      • 3





        scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:48







      • 2





        @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

        – user633183
        Jun 10 at 16:34







      • 1





        [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:41







      • 6





        Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 16:50







      • 1





        @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 19:07







      3




      3





      scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:48






      scan is good. Implementing scan in JavaScript as if it were Haskell is not good, because it gives you quadratic time complexity and stack overflows on arrays that aren’t even particularly big.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:48





      2




      2





      @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

      – user633183
      Jun 10 at 16:34






      @Ry-, Thanks but I don't see the quadratic time complexity. The intermediate arrays are definitely wasteful, but the simple programs show precisely what needs to be done. Optimisation with this kind of program is easy so I usually leave them for the end-user who knows their requirements best. An update to the answer shows a stack-safe scan. Your comment is appreciated.

      – user633183
      Jun 10 at 16:34





      1




      1





      [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 16:41






      [ r, ...scan (f, f (r, x), xs) ] spread – copy of 0 + 1 + … + n−1 items, quadratic. [ x, ...xs ] destructuring – copy of n−1 + n−2 + … + 0 items, quadratic. Thanks for adding the other version.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 16:41





      6




      6





      Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 16:50






      Yes, but O(n*(n+1)/2) = O(n²). The “half” is a constant factor.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 16:50





      1




      1





      @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 19:07





      @ScottSauyet: [r, ...s] and [r].concat(s) are the same in that respect.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 19:07











      3














      You can simply use a for loop with a variable to keep track of the last sum






      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      You can also use map:






      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))








      share|improve this answer

























      • That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15











      • @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

        – Code Maniac
        Jun 10 at 16:13















      3














      You can simply use a for loop with a variable to keep track of the last sum






      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      You can also use map:






      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))








      share|improve this answer

























      • That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15











      • @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

        – Code Maniac
        Jun 10 at 16:13













      3












      3








      3







      You can simply use a for loop with a variable to keep track of the last sum






      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      You can also use map:






      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))








      share|improve this answer















      You can simply use a for loop with a variable to keep track of the last sum






      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      You can also use map:






      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))








      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      let x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      let final = []
      for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
      sum+= arr[i]
      final.push(sum)

      return final


      console.log(sum(x))





      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))





      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

      let sum = (arr) =>
      let sum = 0
      return arr.map(current => sum += current )


      console.log(sum(x))






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jun 10 at 8:32









      Peter Mortensen

      14.2k19 gold badges88 silver badges114 bronze badges




      14.2k19 gold badges88 silver badges114 bronze badges










      answered Jun 10 at 1:46









      Code ManiacCode Maniac

      16.4k4 gold badges12 silver badges38 bronze badges




      16.4k4 gold badges12 silver badges38 bronze badges












      • That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15











      • @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

        – Code Maniac
        Jun 10 at 16:13

















      • That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

        – Ry-
        Jun 10 at 15:15











      • @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

        – Code Maniac
        Jun 10 at 16:13
















      That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:15





      That second code snippet looks strikingly familiar, down to the fact that it’s hidden.

      – Ry-
      Jun 10 at 15:15













      @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

      – Code Maniac
      Jun 10 at 16:13





      @Ry- and the above line states you can also use map, all i wanted to show both the conventional and functional approach, if people feels it's a valid reason to down vote i am happy with it :)

      – Code Maniac
      Jun 10 at 16:13











      3














      You just need to add in every step the current value to the previous result, so you could use a simple reduce.






      const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

      const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
      const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
      acc.push(prev + current);
      return acc;
      ,[]);

      console.log(sums.toString());








      share|improve this answer



























        3














        You just need to add in every step the current value to the previous result, so you could use a simple reduce.






        const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

        const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
        const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
        acc.push(prev + current);
        return acc;
        ,[]);

        console.log(sums.toString());








        share|improve this answer

























          3












          3








          3







          You just need to add in every step the current value to the previous result, so you could use a simple reduce.






          const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

          const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
          const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
          acc.push(prev + current);
          return acc;
          ,[]);

          console.log(sums.toString());








          share|improve this answer













          You just need to add in every step the current value to the previous result, so you could use a simple reduce.






          const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

          const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
          const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
          acc.push(prev + current);
          return acc;
          ,[]);

          console.log(sums.toString());








          const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

          const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
          const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
          acc.push(prev + current);
          return acc;
          ,[]);

          console.log(sums.toString());





          const array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

          const sums = array.reduce((acc,current,index) =>
          const prev = acc.length ? acc[index-1] : 0;
          acc.push(prev + current);
          return acc;
          ,[]);

          console.log(sums.toString());






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jun 10 at 10:04









          Pablo LozanoPablo Lozano

          7,9221 gold badge25 silver badges49 bronze badges




          7,9221 gold badge25 silver badges49 bronze badges





















              3














              If you asking is there a faster or more efficient way then the other answers are sufficient.



              However, I'd argue that something similar to your current solution is easier to read and more declarative if we phrase it as a mapping function.



              Specifically something like "Map each value to itself plus all the previous values in the array".



              You could use a filter, as you have done in your question, but i think a slice is clearer.



              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              // A common generic helper function
              const sum = (acc, val) => acc + val

              const sums = x.map((val, i, self) => val + self.slice(0, i).reduce(sum, 0))





              share|improve this answer























              • This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

                – Ry-
                Jun 10 at 15:46












              • The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

                – Steve
                Jun 10 at 16:20















              3














              If you asking is there a faster or more efficient way then the other answers are sufficient.



              However, I'd argue that something similar to your current solution is easier to read and more declarative if we phrase it as a mapping function.



              Specifically something like "Map each value to itself plus all the previous values in the array".



              You could use a filter, as you have done in your question, but i think a slice is clearer.



              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              // A common generic helper function
              const sum = (acc, val) => acc + val

              const sums = x.map((val, i, self) => val + self.slice(0, i).reduce(sum, 0))





              share|improve this answer























              • This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

                – Ry-
                Jun 10 at 15:46












              • The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

                – Steve
                Jun 10 at 16:20













              3












              3








              3







              If you asking is there a faster or more efficient way then the other answers are sufficient.



              However, I'd argue that something similar to your current solution is easier to read and more declarative if we phrase it as a mapping function.



              Specifically something like "Map each value to itself plus all the previous values in the array".



              You could use a filter, as you have done in your question, but i think a slice is clearer.



              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              // A common generic helper function
              const sum = (acc, val) => acc + val

              const sums = x.map((val, i, self) => val + self.slice(0, i).reduce(sum, 0))





              share|improve this answer













              If you asking is there a faster or more efficient way then the other answers are sufficient.



              However, I'd argue that something similar to your current solution is easier to read and more declarative if we phrase it as a mapping function.



              Specifically something like "Map each value to itself plus all the previous values in the array".



              You could use a filter, as you have done in your question, but i think a slice is clearer.



              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              // A common generic helper function
              const sum = (acc, val) => acc + val

              const sums = x.map((val, i, self) => val + self.slice(0, i).reduce(sum, 0))






              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jun 10 at 11:29









              SteveSteve

              7248 silver badges18 bronze badges




              7248 silver badges18 bronze badges












              • This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

                – Ry-
                Jun 10 at 15:46












              • The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

                – Steve
                Jun 10 at 16:20

















              • This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

                – Ry-
                Jun 10 at 15:46












              • The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

                – Steve
                Jun 10 at 16:20
















              This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

              – Ry-
              Jun 10 at 15:46






              This describes CertainPerformance’s answer, by the way.

              – Ry-
              Jun 10 at 15:46














              The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

              – Steve
              Jun 10 at 16:20





              The code uses the same approach but I don't think that answer explains the value of the approach. Answers should be more than just the code.

              – Steve
              Jun 10 at 16:20











              1














              It's possible to use map directly, if you keep an external accumulator variable:




              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);








              share|improve this answer























              • Clever trick with assignment expression.

                – LiuXiMin
                Jun 15 at 8:53















              1














              It's possible to use map directly, if you keep an external accumulator variable:




              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);








              share|improve this answer























              • Clever trick with assignment expression.

                – LiuXiMin
                Jun 15 at 8:53













              1












              1








              1







              It's possible to use map directly, if you keep an external accumulator variable:




              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);








              share|improve this answer













              It's possible to use map directly, if you keep an external accumulator variable:




              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);








              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);





              const x = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

              let acc = 0;
              const prefixSum = x.map(x => acc += x);

              console.log(prefixSum);






              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jun 14 at 7:14









              Joe23Joe23

              3,6523 gold badges18 silver badges22 bronze badges




              3,6523 gold badges18 silver badges22 bronze badges












              • Clever trick with assignment expression.

                – LiuXiMin
                Jun 15 at 8:53

















              • Clever trick with assignment expression.

                – LiuXiMin
                Jun 15 at 8:53
















              Clever trick with assignment expression.

              – LiuXiMin
              Jun 15 at 8:53





              Clever trick with assignment expression.

              – LiuXiMin
              Jun 15 at 8:53











              0














              One option is to use a single .map which uses .reduce inside to sum up the sliced partial array:






              const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

              const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
              const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
              console.log(partialSums);








              share|improve this answer



























                0














                One option is to use a single .map which uses .reduce inside to sum up the sliced partial array:






                const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

                const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
                const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
                console.log(partialSums);








                share|improve this answer

























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  One option is to use a single .map which uses .reduce inside to sum up the sliced partial array:






                  const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

                  const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
                  const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
                  console.log(partialSums);








                  share|improve this answer













                  One option is to use a single .map which uses .reduce inside to sum up the sliced partial array:






                  const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

                  const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
                  const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
                  console.log(partialSums);








                  const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

                  const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
                  const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
                  console.log(partialSums);





                  const x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

                  const sum = (x, y) => x + y;
                  const partialSums = x.map((_, i, arr) => arr.slice(0, i + 1).reduce(sum));
                  console.log(partialSums);






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jun 10 at 0:14









                  CertainPerformanceCertainPerformance

                  115k16 gold badges75 silver badges104 bronze badges




                  115k16 gold badges75 silver badges104 bronze badges





















                      -1














                      Here is a simple answer using a recursive function.



                      var array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

                      function sumArray(arrayToSum, index)
                      if(index < arrayToSum.length-1)
                      arrayToSum[index+1] = arrayToSum[index] + arrayToSum[index+1];
                      return sumArray(arrayToSum, index+1);
                      else
                      return arrayToSum;


                      sumArray(array, 0);

                      console.log(array);





                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 2





                        This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jun 10 at 18:19















                      -1














                      Here is a simple answer using a recursive function.



                      var array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

                      function sumArray(arrayToSum, index)
                      if(index < arrayToSum.length-1)
                      arrayToSum[index+1] = arrayToSum[index] + arrayToSum[index+1];
                      return sumArray(arrayToSum, index+1);
                      else
                      return arrayToSum;


                      sumArray(array, 0);

                      console.log(array);





                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 2





                        This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jun 10 at 18:19













                      -1












                      -1








                      -1







                      Here is a simple answer using a recursive function.



                      var array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

                      function sumArray(arrayToSum, index)
                      if(index < arrayToSum.length-1)
                      arrayToSum[index+1] = arrayToSum[index] + arrayToSum[index+1];
                      return sumArray(arrayToSum, index+1);
                      else
                      return arrayToSum;


                      sumArray(array, 0);

                      console.log(array);





                      share|improve this answer













                      Here is a simple answer using a recursive function.



                      var array = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];

                      function sumArray(arrayToSum, index)
                      if(index < arrayToSum.length-1)
                      arrayToSum[index+1] = arrayToSum[index] + arrayToSum[index+1];
                      return sumArray(arrayToSum, index+1);
                      else
                      return arrayToSum;


                      sumArray(array, 0);

                      console.log(array);






                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jun 10 at 16:26









                      OrionisOrionis

                      111 silver badge1 bronze badge




                      111 silver badge1 bronze badge







                      • 2





                        This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jun 10 at 18:19












                      • 2





                        This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jun 10 at 18:19







                      2




                      2





                      This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Jun 10 at 18:19





                      This has zero advantages and requires the JIT-compiler to optimize away the recursion, otherwise it could easily overflow the call stack for large arrays. Also it stores the running total to the array and reads it back, instead of keeping it in a variable.

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Jun 10 at 18:19











                      -1














                      A way can be to use for each and then slice the arrays to get the elements one by one and then sum them all by array.reduce You can do this like






                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      We are getting [0] then [0,1] then [0,1,2] then [0,1,2,3] and via [0,1,2].reduce((a, b) => a + b)) we get 3. Just push that to a new array. Which is your answer.



                      We can go even shorter by doing this. To me, this seems a very optimized solution.






                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)





                      Now what this does is we take a variable and then add the values to it and then simply push that to the array.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 18:27












                      • Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 18:32







                      • 1





                        There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:14






                      • 1





                        No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:50






                      • 1





                        @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 19:57















                      -1














                      A way can be to use for each and then slice the arrays to get the elements one by one and then sum them all by array.reduce You can do this like






                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      We are getting [0] then [0,1] then [0,1,2] then [0,1,2,3] and via [0,1,2].reduce((a, b) => a + b)) we get 3. Just push that to a new array. Which is your answer.



                      We can go even shorter by doing this. To me, this seems a very optimized solution.






                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)





                      Now what this does is we take a variable and then add the values to it and then simply push that to the array.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 18:27












                      • Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 18:32







                      • 1





                        There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:14






                      • 1





                        No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:50






                      • 1





                        @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 19:57













                      -1












                      -1








                      -1







                      A way can be to use for each and then slice the arrays to get the elements one by one and then sum them all by array.reduce You can do this like






                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      We are getting [0] then [0,1] then [0,1,2] then [0,1,2,3] and via [0,1,2].reduce((a, b) => a + b)) we get 3. Just push that to a new array. Which is your answer.



                      We can go even shorter by doing this. To me, this seems a very optimized solution.






                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)





                      Now what this does is we take a variable and then add the values to it and then simply push that to the array.






                      share|improve this answer















                      A way can be to use for each and then slice the arrays to get the elements one by one and then sum them all by array.reduce You can do this like






                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      We are getting [0] then [0,1] then [0,1,2] then [0,1,2,3] and via [0,1,2].reduce((a, b) => a + b)) we get 3. Just push that to a new array. Which is your answer.



                      We can go even shorter by doing this. To me, this seems a very optimized solution.






                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)





                      Now what this does is we take a variable and then add the values to it and then simply push that to the array.






                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      let x = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let sum = []
                      x.forEach((_, index) =>
                      index++;
                      sum.push(x.slice(0, index).reduce((a, b) => a + b))
                      )
                      console.log(sum)





                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)





                      let ar = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
                      let s = 0
                      let arr = []
                      ar.forEach((n, i) => arr.push(s += n))
                      console.log(arr)






                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Jun 10 at 19:56

























                      answered Jun 10 at 17:55









                      weegeeweegee

                      8102 silver badges20 bronze badges




                      8102 silver badges20 bronze badges












                      • “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 18:27












                      • Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 18:32







                      • 1





                        There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:14






                      • 1





                        No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:50






                      • 1





                        @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 19:57

















                      • “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 18:27












                      • Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 18:32







                      • 1





                        There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:14






                      • 1





                        No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                        – Ry-
                        Jun 10 at 19:50






                      • 1





                        @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                        – weegee
                        Jun 10 at 19:57
















                      “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 18:27






                      “To me, this seems a very optimized solution.” It isn’t. “You can also use .map instead of forEach like” But why?

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 18:27














                      Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                      – weegee
                      Jun 10 at 18:32






                      Why not?? just for the sake of variety @Ry- Who knows the users is comfortable with any of those?

                      – weegee
                      Jun 10 at 18:32





                      1




                      1





                      There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 19:14





                      There’s a difference in that it pointlessly uses map for a push side effect and discards the result. (Well, I guess it’s not pointless, because it means you’re not technically duplicating my answer.)

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 19:14




                      1




                      1





                      No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 19:50





                      No, I just explained why it’s not faster in the way you seem to think that it is. Try a benchmark. Sure, you can use it anyway, and it’ll be bad practice anyway.

                      – Ry-
                      Jun 10 at 19:50




                      1




                      1





                      @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                      – weegee
                      Jun 10 at 19:57





                      @Ry- okay, I'll accept your approach as I'm a junior and .map returns an array which can also lead to some array waste. Edited my answer

                      – weegee
                      Jun 10 at 19:57

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56519255%2fis-there-a-better-way-to-do-partial-sums-of-array-items-in-javascript%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                      Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

                      What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company