This is an XY problem – ie, you want "... to check if the array is in ascending order" and you tried sorting (via Array.prototype.sort
) and then you're checking the result using binary operator ==
. The result isn't what you expect, so you ask about the sort instead of keeping the focus on your actual goal: checking for ascending order
A case for why you shouldn't sort
Imagine a large array of hundreds or thousands or items. Is the following array in ascending order?
isAscending ([ 5, 1, ... thousands more items ... ])
// => true or false ?
Of course it's false
because 1 is less than 5; the array is not in ascending order. Did we have to sort the entire array to arrive at that answer? No, we only needed to look at the first 2 items (in this case) to know the answer is false
Other answers show using .slice
to copy the input array – this is silly tho, because of course we don't have to copy an array to determine if it is in ascending order – it's a waste of time/space.
A case for why you shouldn't use ==
Well first, you can't, because of the following (in JavaScript)
[ 1, 2, 3 ] == [ 1, 2, 3 ]
// => false
So how would use ==
if you could? Maybe an approach would be to check if each element in the first array is equal to each array element in the second array. Ok, now imagine two large arrays of hundreds of thousands of items. Are the following two arrays equal?
[ 1, ... thousands of items ... ] == [ 2, ... thousands of items ... ]
// => true or false ?
We know they're not equal because 1 != 2
– it's the same case as the sorting; there's no sense in comparing the rest of the items because we already know the arrays are not equal
There's other ways to compare Arrays (and objects) in JavaScript, but we only have one input array, so there's no array to compare it to – this is another dead-end to the approach
Check if an array is in ascending order
Ok, so now that were done talking about array sorting and array equality in JavaScript, we can actually write a function that does what you intend it to do
const isAscending = ([x,y,...rest]) =>
x === undefined // array is empty
? true
: y === undefined // single element array
? true
: x > y // first element is larger than second
? false
: isAscending ([y,...rest]) // check remaining elements
console.log (isAscending ([])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([1])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([1,3,5,7])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([5,1,3,7])) // false
Stack-safe recursion
But you have to be careful using recursion in JavaScript – input arrays of just a couple thousand elements could cause a stack overflow in the program above
Using a constant-space looping mechanism, we can rewrite isAscending
in a way that works on arrays of any input size. The loop
/recur
interface gives us an opportunity to track any number/type of state variables, so this implementation also avoids the costly creation of many array slices (in rest parameter and spread argument syntax above)
const recur = (...args) =>
({ type: recur, args })
const loop = f =>
{
let acc = f ()
while (acc.type === recur)
acc = f (...acc.args)
return acc
}
const isAscending = xs =>
xs.length < 2
? true
: loop ((a = 0, b = 1) =>
a === xs.length
? true
: xs [a] > xs [b]
? false
: recur (a + 1, b + 1)) // *
console.log (isAscending ([])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([1])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([1,3,5,7])) // true
console.log (isAscending ([5,1,3,7])) // false
* or recur (b, b + 1)
, which saves on addition operation per array element