ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Get the last item in an array

Here is my JavaScript code so far:

var linkElement = document.getElementById("BackButton");
var loc_array = document.location.href.split('/');
var newT = document.createTextNode(unescape(capWords(loc_array[loc_array.length-2]))); 
linkElement.appendChild(newT);

Currently it takes the second to last item in the array from the URL. However, I want to do a check for the last item in the array to be "index.html" and if so, grab the third to last item instead.


j
jsN00b
if (loc_array[loc_array.length - 1] === 'index.html') {
   // do something
} else {
   // something else
}

In the event that your server serves the same file for "index.html" and "inDEX.htML" you can also use: .toLowerCase().

Though, you might want to consider doing this server-side if possible: it will be cleaner and work for people without JS.

EDIT - ES-2022

Using ES-2022 Array.at(), the above may be written like this:

if (loc_array.at(-1) === 'index.html') {
   // do something
} else {
   // something else
}

if you just need last item you can you Array.pop()
@BadriDerakhshan That would inevitably remove the last element from the array before returning it so this is not an option if you merely want to inspect the last element of the array. You would also have to push it back to restore the array to its former state.
The solution from @BadriDerakhshan is useful for cases where the array created is temporary. For eg. instead of x = string.split('/'); return x[x.length-1], you could do return x.split('/').pop()
Doesn't work on Safari
at() method is not supported by Safari IOS, Chrome IOS, and Samsung Internet caniuse.com/mdn-javascript_builtins_string_at
k
kuporific

Not sure if there's a drawback, but this seems quite concise:

arr.slice(-1)[0] 

or

arr.slice(-1).pop()

Both will return undefined if the array is empty.


using destructuring is nice too: const [lastItem] = arr.slice(-1)
@Badrush slice() makes new array with a copy of a single element, and pop modifies only that copy. the original array remains unharmed
@mvmn i did a benchmark a long time ago, throughput was around one or two million calls per second on a single 2.4ghz thread. so unless you have solve problems you shouldn't solve in JS anyways, it won't be noticable (iirc slowdown compared to arr[arr.length-1] was 50-100x)
this method is very slow
@Govan please see my comment. you can call this an exorbitant number of times per second. if you need more, or have the array length readily available, use normal array access for maximum performance arr[arr.length-1]
S
Somatik

Use Array.pop:

var lastItem = anArray.pop();

Important : This returns the last element and removes it from the array


especially great for something like: filename.split('.').pop()
it doesnt only return the last element but removes it !
const lastItem = [...anArray].pop() would be a way to avoid the mutation
A
Aram Kocharyan

A shorter version of what @chaiguy posted:

Array.prototype.last = function() {
    return this[this.length - 1];
}

Reading the -1 index returns undefined already.

EDIT:

These days the preference seems to be using modules and to avoid touching the prototype or using a global namespace.

export function last(array) {
    return array[array.length - 1];
}

If it's not obvious how this is to be actually used, here's an example: var lastItem = [3,2,1,5].last();. The value of lastItem is 5.
This answer is correct and also pretty clean BUT(!!!) A rule of thumb using Javascript is that Do NOT modify objects you Do NOT own. It's dangerous because of many reasons, such as 1. Other developers working in your team could get confused as this method is not standard 2.with any update in libraries or even using a lower or higher ECMAScript version it could easily get LOST!
For anyone wondering, this breaks Array.forEach(). I still agree that modifying prototypes is not the worst thing out there, but this one is bad.
Imo there's not such a big problem with modifying Array.prototype, but you should use Object.assign(Array.prototype, 'last', { value: function () { … } });. Otherwise the property will be enumerable.
@FarzadYousefzadeh Interesting article that tells when and how to modify a JS native prototype.
J
Josh Click

Two options are:

var last = arr[arr.length - 1]

or

var last = arr.slice(-1)[0]

The former is faster, but the latter looks nicer

http://jsperf.com/slice-vs-length-1-arr


Thanks for for jsperf link. The second option is a nonsense from performance point of view.
The first option is also very obvious what it does. Second one not so much
C
Community

Performance

Today 2020.05.16 I perform tests of chosen solutions on Chrome v81.0, Safari v13.1 and Firefox v76.0 on MacOs High Sierra v10.13.6

Conclusions

arr[arr.length-1] (D) is recommended as fastest cross-browser solution

mutable solution arr.pop() (A) and immutable _.last(arr) (L) are fast

solutions I, J are slow for long strings

solutions H, K (jQuery) are slowest on all browsers

https://i.stack.imgur.com/smISX.png

Details

I test two cases for solutions:

mutable: A, B, C,

immutable: D, E, F, G, H, I, J (my),

immutable from external libraries: K, L, M,

for two cases

short string - 10 characters - you can run test HERE

long string - 1M characters - you can run test HERE

function A(arr) { return arr.pop(); } function B(arr) { return arr.splice(-1,1); } function C(arr) { return arr.reverse()[0] } function D(arr) { return arr[arr.length - 1]; } function E(arr) { return arr.slice(-1)[0] ; } function F(arr) { let [last] = arr.slice(-1); return last; } function G(arr) { return arr.slice(-1).pop(); } function H(arr) { return [...arr].pop(); } function I(arr) { return arr.reduceRight(a => a); } function J(arr) { return arr.find((e,i,a)=> a.length==i+1); } function K(arr) { return $(arr).get(-1); } function L(arr) { return _.last(arr); } function M(arr) { return _.nth(arr, -1); } // ---------- // TEST // ---------- let loc_array=["domain","a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","file"]; log = (f)=> console.log(`${f.name}: ${f([...loc_array])}`); [A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M].forEach(f=> log(f));

Example results for Chrome for short string

https://i.stack.imgur.com/VYUMF.png


What is the numbers mentioned? Is higher better?
I could guess the results even without you having to run them, lol. But I don't think that performance matters much in this case.
N
Neithan Max

Here's how to get it with no effect on the original ARRAY

a = [1,2,5,6,1,874,98,"abc"];
a.length; //returns 8 elements

If you use pop(), it will modify your array

a.pop();  // will return "abc" AND REMOVES IT from the array 
a.length; // returns 7

But you can use this so it has no effect on the original array:

a.slice(-1).pop(); // will return "abc" won't do modify the array 
                   // because slice creates a new array object 
a.length;          // returns 8; no modification and you've got you last element 

you should do slice(-1).pop(), otherwise you copy the entire array (you really only need to copy the last element).
No need for that pop() then: just do arr.slice(-1)[0]
R
Roko C. Buljan

The "cleanest" ES6 way (IMO) would be:

const foo = [1,2,3,4];
const bar = [...foo].pop();

This avoids mutating foo, as .pop() would had, if we didn't used the spread operator.
That said, I like aswell the foo.slice(-1)[0] solution.


You can also use the array destructuring to make it more ES6 ;) stackoverflow.com/a/46485581/31671
Note that this solution performs a copy of the entire array.
It's just as unreadable as .slice(-1)[0] but it's slower. Might as well use .slice
Copying the whole array just for "clean" syntax seems silly to me. It doesnt even look that nice
J
Jamie Mason

const [lastItem] = array.slice(-1);

Array.prototype.slice with -1 can be used to create a new Array containing only the last item of the original Array, you can then use Destructuring Assignment to create a variable using the first item of that new Array.

const lotteryNumbers = [12, 16, 4, 33, 41, 22]; const [lastNumber] = lotteryNumbers.slice(-1); console.log(lotteryNumbers.slice(-1)); // => [22] console.log(lastNumber); // => 22


The .slice(-1) answer was already given multiple times, starting in 2012, and its implications were discussion in detail (unlike here). Please do not give repetitive answers just to get some upvotes.
I like this answer the best of all. The other .slice(-1) answers I have seen use [0] rather than destructuring. A comment by @diachedelic suggested this kind of destructuring, but it deserves to be an answer rather than a comment, in my opinion. Nice examples and links also.
Yeah those other answers aren't the same Dan, you're missing the use of destructuring assignment from the Array produced by slice(-1).
k
kingbeencent
const [y] = x.slice(-1)

Quick Explanation: This syntax [y] = is called destructuring assignment & according to Mozilla docs, the destructuring assingment makes possible to unpack values from an array or properties from an object into distinct variables Read more about it: here


Definitely better to just use arr[arr.length - 1] as it is both more readable and nearly an order of magnitude faster on most browsers.
@acnebs I agree, why make it harder when you can make it easier.
a
alex

I'd rather use array.pop() than indexes.

while(loc_array.pop()!= "index.html"){
}
var newT = document.createTextNode(unescape(capWords(loc_array[loc_array.length])));

this way you always get the element previous to index.html (providing your array has isolated index.html as one item). Note: You'll lose the last elements from the array, though.


R
Richie Bendall

You can use relative indexing with Array#at:

const myArray = [1, 2, 3]

console.log(myArray.at(-1))
// => 3

And as of 3/2021 it's still in proposal and not supported by any browser
This is supported since Firefox 88 (Nightly only) and Safari 14.1 (with jscOptions=--useAtMethod=true). The lastItem proposal will probably be withdrawn.
now on chrome92 it is supported. chromestatus.com/feature/6123640410079232
Good answer, though it would be better if it were called out that this is a new method that's not fully supported by all modern browsers, and not supported by older browsers.
@M.Justin There’s a link to documentation which has a browser support table — should be enough. I’d prefer the most modern solutions to be highlighted. Most things can be polyfilled or transpiled to older environments automatically. In a rapidly evolving ecosystem, developers should probably reconsider writing code for older environments by hand or assuming that everything is supported everywhere.
B
BuZZ-dEE
const lastElement = myArray[myArray.length - 1];

This is the best options from performance point of view (~1000 times faster than arr.slice(-1)).


How does this add anything to the top answer?
a
alex

You can use this pattern...

let [last] = arr.slice(-1);

While it reads rather nicely, keep in mind it creates a new array so it's less efficient than other solutions but it'll almost never be the performance bottleneck of your application.


i
illright

If one wants to get the last element in one go, he/she may use Array#splice():

lastElement = document.location.href.split('/').splice(-1,1);

Here, there is no need to store the split elements in an array, and then get to the last element. If getting last element is the only objective, this should be used.

Note: This changes the original array by removing its last element. Think of splice(-1,1) as a pop() function that pops the last element.


Doesn't this return the last element in an array, instead of the last element itself?
@tozazaburo isn't that the same thing?
this modifies the array. you could use slice(-1) instead of splice(-1) to leave the original array untouched. @AramKocharyan no its not, compare ["hi"] vs "hi".
a
akhtarvahid

Multiple ways to find last value of an array in javascript

Without affecting original array

var arr = [1,2,3,4,5]; console.log(arr.slice(-1)[0]) console.log(arr[arr.length-1]) const [last] = [...arr].reverse(); console.log(last) let copyArr = [...arr]; console.log(copyArr.reverse()[0]);

Modifies original array

var arr = [1,2,3,4,5]; console.log(arr.pop()) arr.push(5) console.log(...arr.splice(-1));

By creating own helper method

let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; Object.defineProperty(arr, 'last', { get: function(){ return this[this.length-1]; } }) console.log(arr.last);


If your first example where you state "Without affecting original array" and by doing as suggested: console.log(arr.reverse()[0]) - congratulations, you just modified the original array.
M
Mohoch

Getting the last item of an array can be achieved by using the slice method with negative values.

You can read more about it here at the bottom.

var fileName = loc_array.slice(-1)[0];
if(fileName.toLowerCase() == "index.html")
{
  //your code...
}

Using pop() will change your array, which is not always a good idea.


Slice returns an array, though, so use arr.slice(-1)[0], like this answer.
If performance is an issue, know that this method is a lot slower than array[array.length - 1] jsperf.com/get-last-item-from-array/13
P
Paul Parker

This question has been around a long time, so I'm surprised that no one mentioned just putting the last element back on after a pop().

arr.pop() is exactly as efficient as arr[arr.length-1], and both are the same speed as arr.push().

Therefore, you can get away with:

---EDITED [check that thePop isn't undefined before pushing]---

let thePop = arr.pop()
thePop && arr.push(thePop)

---END EDIT---

Which can be reduced to this (same speed [EDIT: but unsafe!]):

arr.push(thePop = arr.pop())    //Unsafe if arr empty

This is twice as slow as arr[arr.length-1], but you don't have to stuff around with an index. That's worth gold on any day.

Of the solutions I've tried, and in multiples of the Execution Time Unit (ETU) of arr[arr.length-1]:

[Method]..............[ETUs 5 elems]...[ETU 1 million elems]

arr[arr.length - 1]      ------> 1              -----> 1

let myPop = arr.pop()
arr.push(myPop)          ------> 2              -----> 2

arr.slice(-1).pop()      ------> 36             -----> 924  

arr.slice(-1)[0]         ------> 36             -----> 924  

[...arr].pop()           ------> 120            -----> ~21,000,000 :)

The last three options, ESPECIALLY [...arr].pop(), get VERY much worse as the size of the array increases. On a machine without the memory limitations of my machine, [...arr].pop() probably maintains something like it's 120:1 ratio. Still, no one likes a resource hog.


If initial array can be empty, this approach will result incorrectly and [] will be turned into [undefined]. You need to protect backward push with explicit undefined check, something like myPop !== undefined && arr.push(myPop)
s
sidgujrathi

Just putting another option here.

loc_array.splice(-1)[0] === 'index.html'

I found the above approach more clean and short onliner. Please, free feel to try this one.

Note: It will modify the original array, if you don't want to modify it you can use slice()

loc_array.slice(-1)[0] === 'index.html'

Thanks @VinayPai for pointing this out.


According to the comment by stackoverflow.com/users/510036/qix-monica-was-mistreated on this post stackoverflow.com/questions/9050345/… and the tests at jsperf.com/last-array-element2 that is extremely slow
The .slice(-1) answer was already given multiple times, starting in 2012, and its implications were discussion in detail (unlike here). Please do not give repetitive answers just to get some upvotes.
@DanDascalescu Thank you for your kind words. It was honest mistake, I didn't saw that answer before on same question and tried to help with what I know. Also if upvotes were my moto then you would have seen more duplicate answers on my profile.
@DanDascalescu Any way, way to encourage new members on the platform and a very great way to show their mistakes. Kudos to you man. Coming from such a strong profile, advocate, co-founder is very inspiring and I surely try not to follow such influencer and keep my ways polite enough to make new members comfortable. Thanks for the lesson. It was good one ;)
g
gautamits

ES6 object destructuring is another way to go.

const {length, [length-1]: last}=[1,2,3,4,5] console.log(last)

You extract length property from Array using object destructuring. You create another dynamic key using already extracted key by [length-1] and assign it to last, all in one line.


Thanks, Can you explain what exactly it does ?
from my understanding (I could be wrong) length is the first index of the array. but [length-1] is the last index (the one before it). :last is the alias used to define the last index (or the one before the first one to be exact)
@TarunNagpal arrays are like objects, they have a length property and indices as properties. here we destructor length then use computed property name [length -1] to get the last element.
R
Ran Turner

Getting the last item is possible via the length property. Since the array count starts at 0, you can pick the last item by referencing the array.length - 1 item

const arr = [1,2,3,4]; const last = arr[arr.length - 1]; console.log(last); // 4

Another option is using the new Array.prototype.at() method which takes an integer value and returns the item at that index. Negative integers count back from the last item in the array so if we want the last item we can just pass in -1

const arr = [1,2,3,4]; const last = arr.at(-1); console.log(last); // 4

Another option is using the new findLast method. You can see the proposal here

const arr = [1,2,3,4]; const last = arr.findLast(x => true); console.log(last); // 4

Another option is using the Array.prototype.slice() method which returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array into a new array object.

const arr = [1,2,3,4]; const last = arr.slice(-1)[0]; console.log(last); // 4


Why on earth does this post have -1 ???
imo it should be arr.findLast(() => true); since your version would not "find" falsy values like 0 or "", ...
I updated my answer @Thomas, thanks for the great comment.
d
devios1

For those not afraid to overload the Array prototype (and with enumeration masking you shouldn't be):

Object.defineProperty( Array.prototype, "getLast", {
    enumerable: false,
    configurable: false,
    writable: false,
    value: function() {
        return this[ this.length - 1 ];
    }
} );

L
Lucio Paiva

Here's more Javascript art if you came here looking for it

In the spirit of another answer that used reduceRight(), but shorter:

[3, 2, 1, 5].reduceRight(a => a);

It relies on the fact that, in case you don't provide an initial value, the very last element is selected as the initial one (check the docs here). Since the callback just keeps returning the initial value, the last element will be the one being returned in the end.

Beware that this should be considered Javascript art and is by no means the way I would recommend doing it, mostly because it runs in O(n) time, but also because it hurts readability.

And now for the serious answer

The best way I see (considering you want it more concise than array[array.length - 1]) is this:

const last = a => a[a.length - 1];

Then just use the function:

last([3, 2, 1, 5])

The function is actually useful in case you're dealing with an anonymous array like [3, 2, 1, 5] used above, otherwise you'd have to instantiate it twice, which would be inefficient and ugly:

[3, 2, 1, 5][[3, 2, 1, 5].length - 1]

Ugh.

For instance, here's a situation where you have an anonymous array and you'd have to define a variable, but you can use last() instead:

last("1.2.3".split("."));

n
niels

I generally use underscorejs, with it you can just do

if (_.last(loc_array) === 'index.html'){
  etc...
}

For me that is more semantic than loc_array.slice(-1)[0]


C
Cees Timmerman

jQuery solves this neatly:

> $([1,2,3]).get(-1)
3
> $([]).get(-1)
undefined

A
Alexandr Malinin

To prevent removing last item from origin array you could use

Array.from(myArray).pop()

Mostly supported of all browsers (ES6)


И
Илья Зеленько

In ECMAScript proposal Stage 1 there is a suggestion to add an array property that will return the last element: proposal-array-last.

Syntax:

arr.lastItem // get last item
arr.lastItem = 'value' // set last item

arr.lastIndex // get last index

You can use polyfill.

Proposal author: Keith Cirkel(chai autor)


A
Auax

I think this should work fine.

var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var last_element = arr.reverse()[0];

Just reverse the array and get the first element.

Edit: As mentioned below, the original array will be reversed. To avoid that you can change the code to:

var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var last_element = arr.slice().reverse()[0];

This will create a copy of the original array.


This will alter the original array
The slice() copies the array var arr = [1, 2, 3]; last_element = arr.slice().reverse()[0];
@Zellius Might as well just pop the last element if you're going to slice the array. i.e. arr.slice().pop()
M
Michael Falck Wedelgård

Personally I would upvote answer by kuporific / kritzikratzi. The array[array.length-1] method gets very ugly if you're working with nested arrays.

var array = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [7,8,9]]
​
array.slice(-1)[0]
​
//instead of 
​
array[array.length-1]
​
//Much easier to read with nested arrays
​
array.slice(-1)[0].slice(-1)[0]
​
//instead of
​
array[array.length-1][array[array.length-1].length-1]

C
Community

Whatever you do don't just use reverse() !!!

A few answers mention reverse but don't mention the fact that reverse modifies the original array, and doesn't (as in some other language or frameworks) return a copy.

var animals = ['dog', 'cat'];

animals.reverse()[0]
"cat"

animals.reverse()[0]
"dog"

animals.reverse()[1]
"dog"

animals.reverse()[1]
"cat"

This can be the worst type of code to debug!


If you do want a reversed copy of your array, you can use the spread operator now. e.g. [...animals].reverse()
you can simply copy the array before using reverse [1,3,4,5,"last"].slice().reverse()[0]