# gypsydave5

The blog of David Wickes, software developer

# (Even More) Memoization in JavaScript

A while ago I wrote a piece on basic lazy evaluation and memoization in JavaScript. I’d like to continue some of the thoughts there on memoization, and to look at how some popular JS libraries handle it.

### Memoization refresher

According to Wikipedia, memoization is:

an optimization technique used primarily to speed up computer programs by storing the results of expensive function calls and returning the cached result when the same inputs occur again.

We want the program to remember the results of its operation, so it doesn’t have to expend any extra time and effort in doing them all over again. It all seems a little obvious really.

So the first time we saw memoization it was in the context of lazy evaluation, where the memoized function had already been prepared to be lazy. The lazily evaluated function was executed within our memoizer, and the result was retained within the scope of the memoized function, to be returned each subsequent time the function was called. As a refresher:

function lazyEvalMemo (fn) {
const args = arguments;
let result;
const lazyEval = fn.bind.apply(fn, args);
return function () {
if (result) {
return result
}
result = lazyEval()
return result;
}
}


Which is great if want the function to be memoized with a specific set of arguments. But that isn’t going to work all of the time - probably not even most of the time. It’s rare that there’s just one set of parameters we want to be eternally bound to our function. A bit of freedom would be nice.

### Keeping track of your arguments

If we want to be able to memoize a function which can take a variety of arguments, we need a way to keep track of them. Let’s take one of the simplest cases:

function addOne (x) {
return x + 1;
};


That shouldn’t take too much explanation. Now, in order to have a memoized version of it, we need to keep track of all the different values of x passed to it, and to associate them with the return value of addOne.

A JavaScript object should suffice, taking x as a key, and the result as the value. Let’s give it a go:


const memo = {};

if (memo[x]) {
return memo[x];
}
return memo[x] = x + 1;
};


This takes advantage of the fact that the value of an assignment to an object is the value assigned (in this case x + 1), saving a line or so. The only issue here is that the value of memo is floating around in public, just waiting for other functions to overwrite and mutate. We need a way to hide it.

Well, we could place memo on the function itself - it is an object after all - and just put an underscore in front of its name to try and let the world know that it’s private (even though it isn’t really private):

function memoAddOne (x) {

}
return memoAddOne._memo[x] = x + 1;
};


This isn’t beautiful, but it works. _memo gets defined as an empty object on initialization and gets filled up with results on each application of the function - throw some console.log()s in there to prove it to yourself. That’s exciting - although we’re still a little exposed with the _memo property being available on the function.

That said, we’ve got what we came for - a memoized version of our function that works for many different arguments.

### Fun with strings

Problem is, we’re reliant on x being used as the property for our _memo object. As all good school children are taught, JavaScript, like the universe, is just a load of strings held together by poorly-understood forces. When x is used in _memo[x], JavaScript handily casts it to a string to be used as the property name.

I say handily - but try this…

memoAddOne([55]) // => '551'


Because…

55.toString() // => '55'
[55].toString() // => '55'


Ah, JavaScript: thou givest with one hand… toString(), which is what JavaScript is using under the hood to cast the non-string property identifier to a string, does not uniquely identify that argument. So our function behaves inconsistently depending on whether it was given the array or the number that toString() converts to the same string.

We need a more predictable way of parsing our argument. Happily, we can borrow one of the built-in functions of JavaScript to do this, JSON.stringify().

JSON.stringify(55) // => '55'
JSON.stringify('55') // => '"55"'
JSON.stringify([55]) // => '[55]'
JSON.stringify(['55']) // => '["55"]'


Pretty good - let’s give it a whirl:

function memoAddOne (x) {
const jsonX = JSON.stringify(x);

}
return memoAddOne._memo[jsonX] = x + 1;
};



Sorted.

### The General Case

Now let’s put together a function that can memoize any function - and as a bonus, we can also hide that nasty _memo property behind a closure:

function memoize (fn) {
const memo = {};

return function () {
const args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
const jsonArgs = JSON.stringify(args);

if (memo[jsonArgs]) {
return memo[jsonArgs];
}
return memo[jsonArgs] = fn.apply(null, args);
};
};


Much of this should now be familiar, but let’s dig in. We take a single argument, hopefully a function, and bind it to the variable fn. We now get to declare memo inside our function - and hooray it’s now unavailable to anyone but the function we’re returning. Now that’s what I call private - thank you closures!

The function we give back, well we don’t know how many arguments it’s going to be given so why bind them to any parameters? We’ll just leave its parameters empty. Any arguments we do get we’ll instantly turn into an array by using the funky Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) dance. And that array we can stringify() on the next line and call something useful like jsonArgs.

Then we do much the same as above, only instead of giving x + 1 as the value of _memo[jsonX], we set the value of memo[jsonArgs] as the result of applying the args array to the original function we were given to memoize. Job done.

Again, throw some console.logs in there to see what’s really going on.

### Here’s One I Made Earlier Installed With npm

The above is so incredibly useful that you’ll not be surprised to learn that it’s implemented, with slight modifications, in functional JavaScript libraries like Underscore, Lodash and (personal niche favourite) Ramda.1

Let’s take a look at the Lodash implementation:

function memoize(func, resolver) {
if (typeof func != 'function' || (resolver && typeof resolver != 'function')) {
throw new TypeError(FUNC_ERROR_TEXT);
}
var memoized = function() {
var args = arguments,
key = resolver ? resolver.apply(this, args) : args[0],
cache = memoized.cache;

if (cache.has(key)) {
return cache.get(key);
}
var result = func.apply(this, args);
memoized.cache = cache.set(key, result);
return result;
};
memoized.cache = new memoize.Cache;
return memoized;
}


Now, although this is a little more long-winded complicated than the code above, it should be similar enough for us to see that they’re doing the same thing. The difference being that in the above we are to supply an external function to hash the arguments (the resolver function), and that Lodash offers a custom caching object with a get() and set() interface, which we can overwrite if we like.

(Bonus Question: why does this implementation of memoize suck if we don’t supply a resolver argument?)

The above library code will save us all the hassle of writing a memoization function ourselves - but now we can see how they work under the hood, we can take a more informed decision about whether we need to create a dependency on external library, or whether we just put together the (relatively) simple piece of code ourselves.

1. Seriously, this is the one to go for. It’s amazing, it’s beautiful - it’s functional.