Javascript Anonymous Functions and Global Variables

Question

I thought I would try and be clever and create a Wait function of my own (I realise there are other ways to do this). So I wrote:

var interval_id;
var countdowntimer = 0;

function Wait(wait_interval) {
  countdowntimer = wait_interval;

  interval_id = setInterval(function() {
    --countdowntimer <=0 ? clearInterval(interval_id) : null;
  }, 1000);

  do {} while (countdowntimer >= 0);
}

// Wait a bit: 5 secs
Wait(5);

This all works, except for the infinite looping. Upon inspection, if I take the While loop out, the anonymous function is entered 5 times, as expected. So clearly the global variable countdowntimer is decremented.

However, if I check the value of countdowntimer, in the While loop, it never goes down. This is despite the fact that the anonymous function is being called whilst in the While loop!

Clearly, somehow, there are two values of countdowntimer floating around, but why?

EDIT

Ok, so I understand (now) that Javascript is single threaded. And that - sort of - answers my question. But, at which point in the processing of this single thread, does the so called asynchronous call using setInterval actually happen? Is it just between function calls? Surely not, what about functions that take a long time to execute?

Answer 1

There aren't two copies of the variable lying around. Javascript in web browsers is single threaded (unless you use the new web workers stuff). So the anonymous function never has the chance to run, because Wait is tying up the interpreter.

You can't use a busy-wait functions in browser-based Javascript; nothing else will ever happen (and they're a bad idea in most other environments, even where they're possible). You have to use callbacks instead. Here's a minimalist reworking of that:

var interval_id;
var countdowntimer = 0;

function Wait(wait_interval, callback) {
    countdowntimer = wait_interval;

    interval_id = setInterval(function() {
        if (--countdowntimer <=0) {
            clearInterval(interval_id);
            interval_id = 0;
            callback();
        }
    }, 1000);
}

// Wait a bit: 5 secs
Wait(5, function() {
    alert("Done waiting");
});

// Any code here happens immediately, it doesn't wait for the callback

Edit Answering your follow-up:

But, at which point in the processing of this single thread, does the so called asynchronous call using setInterval actually happen? Is it just between function calls? Surely not, what about functions that take a long time to execute?

Pretty much, yeah — and so it's important that functions not be long-running. (Technically it's not even between function calls, in that if you have a function that calls three other functions, the interpreter can't do anything else while that (outer) function is running.) The interpreter essentially maintains a queue of functions it needs to execute. It starts starts by executing any global code (rather like a big function call). Then, when things happen (user input events, the time to call a callback scheduled via setTimeout is reached, etc.), the interpreter pushes the calls it needs to make onto the queue. It always processes the call at the front of the queue, and so things can stack up (like your setInterval calls, although setInterval is a bit special — it won't queue a subsequent callback if a previous one is still sitting in the queue waiting to be processed). So think in terms of when your code gets control and when it releases control (e.g., by returning). The interpreter can only do other things after you release control and before it gives it back to you again. And again, on some browsers (IE, for instance), that same thread is also used for painting the UI and such, so DOM insertions (for instance) won't show up until you release control back to the browser so it can get on with doing its painting.

When Javascript in web browsers, you really need to take an event-driven approach to designing and coding your solutions. The classic example is prompting the user for information. In a non-event-driven world, you could do this:

// Non-functional non-event-driven pseudo-example
askTheQuestion();
answer = readTheAnswer();      // Script pauses here
doSomethingWithAnswer(answer); // This doesn't happen until we have an answer
doSomethingElse();

That doesn't work in an event-driven world. Instead, you do this:

askTheQuestion();
setCallbackForQuestionAnsweredEvent(doSomethingWithAnswer);
// If we had code here, it would happen *immediately*,
// it wouldn't wait for the answer

So for instance, askTheQuestion might overlay a div on the page with fields prompting the user for various pieces of information with an "OK" button for them to click when they're done. setCallbackForQuestionAnswered would really be hooking the click event on the "OK" button. doSomethingWithAnswer would collect the information from the fields, remove or hide the div, and do something with the info.

Answer 2

Most Javascript implementation are single threaded, so when it is executing the while loop, it doesn't let anything else execute, so the interval never runs while the while is running, thus making an infinite loop.

There are many similar attempts to create a sleep/wait/pause function in javascript, but since most implementations are single threaded, it simply doesn't let you do anything else while sleeping(!).

The alternative way to make a delay is to write timeouts. They can postpone an execution of a chunk of code, but you have to break it in many functions. You can always inline functions so it makes it easier to follow (and to share variables within the same execution context).

There are also some libraries that adds some syntatic suggar to javascript making this more readable.

EDIT: There's an excelent blog post by John Resig himself about How javascript timers work. He pretty much explains it in details. Hope it helps.

Answer 3

Actually, its pretty much guaranteed that the interval function will never run while the loop does as javascript is single-threaded.

There is a reason why no-one has made Wait before (and so many have tried); it simply cannot be done.

You will have to resort to braking up your function into bits and schedule these using setTimeout or setInterval.

//first part
...
setTimeout(function(){
    //next part
}, 5000/*ms*/);

Depending on your needs this could (should) be implemented as a state machine.

Answer 4

Instead of using a global countdowntimer variable, why not just change the millisecond attribute on setInterval instead? Something like:

var waitId;

function Wait(waitSeconds)
{
    waitId= setInterval(function(){clearInterval(waitId);}, waitSeconds * 1000);
}