If it has side-effects like.

Auckerman: Splitting it for each line and each value, then calling p****Float

Tumulty: Hackal: except reduceRight, which goes backwards.

Thibedeau: Is there another way to p**** it faster?

Tumulty: The_2nd: make whatever produces it, give it to you in a better format

Bidle: Hackal: streams.everystream = stream.viewers = limit

Nayar: Tumulty, what would be a better format?

Tumulty: The_2nd: sounds like json that gives you an array of arrays of numbers

Bazinet: But that shouldn’t be very slow

Tumulty: Yeah, neither should be slow tho, that’s a good point

Bobet: Ok but that would work only if I want to test them. What if I want to call console.log with names of the streams which are = than limit?

Slaven: My super slow version: http://pastebin.com/3WfNzXRW

Tumulty: Hackal: then use filter

Aschbacher: Is there any sort of TCP fingerprinting you can do on clients who are opening a socket using Node.js?

Pefferman: Array.prototype.filter

Konopacki: Soteros: function filter

Aschbacher: Like can I identify if they are using Node.js

Forsee: Great, filter looks like what I need. Thank you very much again

Tumulty: Aschbacher: that’s a #node.js question, but no, i doubt it

Tumulty: Aschbacher: it’s the internet, clients can be using anything and pretending to be anything.

Bazinet: The_2nd: you might be spending more time creating arrays than parsing

Aschbacher: That’s what I thought .

Macdonnell: Hmmm i wonder if there are useragents in websockets

Bazinet: The_2nd: you could try splitting by /s/ and then just push onto one array, and see if it’s any faster

Tumulty: Soteros: of course, but user agents are utterly spoofable

Vitko: Yeah of course but that’s gonna be a minority that’s gonna bother to do that right

Bazinet: The_2nd: but it may just be slow, depending on what you are comparing it to

Woytowicz: Unless it’s some sort of DRM or a game 😛

Tumulty: Soteros: depends on the purpose, i guess. but UA sniffing is never going to lead down a good road.

Deprez: Yeah, i’d prefer not needing to know what client is your client and hope they stick to the spec

Copney: Bazinet, generating the point data server side is at least 100* faster than parsing in js client side 😀

Bazinet: The_2nd: how slow is it?

Facundo: Https://jsfiddle.net/rpf5pbsc/1/ here is the function with filter

Bazinet: The_2nd: or, what’s the server side language?

Hildreth: Hello, can someone tell me why I can zoom without distinct zoom levels on google.com/maps but have to use them when I embed a map through the API? Sorry if that is too offtopic, didn’t really know which channel would be appropriate.

Surber: Moeh: yeah sadly google maps on their site is much more functional than the API , not sure about this specific question, just commenting

Parga: Bazinet, haskell server side

Bidle: Hackal: why are you using filter instead of every there

Bazinet: The_2nd: anyway, JSON should be faster to p****

Bidle: Also, something like: function reportstreams = , limit = 10 {return streams.streams.everystream = {stream.viewers = limit}} is more like it

Prier: Bidle: because I need to call console.log; with the name of the stream

Hellweg: Soteros: Yes, the interesting thing is that in the beginning the behavior on google.com/maps is the same with regards to zooming. After a couple of seconds they apparently check something performance? browser compatibility? and Ansari the zooming without distinct levels.

Bidle: Hackal: that’s not something you should be using filter for

Bidle: If it has side-effects like that just use .forEach and console.log and set full there