max of array in JavaScript

javascript arrays node.js ecmascript-6

13,723

You can use Math.max and ES6 spread syntax (...):

let array = [1, 2, 0, -5, 8, 3];

console.log(Math.max(...array)); //=> 8

13,723

Author by

byteSlayer

Hi, I am a front end mobild and web developer, mainly focusing on interactive web apps and real time pear communication. I am also currently a student learning for a degree in computer sciences, mainly focusing on software development. I mainly program in C, Javascript, Objective C and MIPS assembly. I work with ubuntu and my goto() editor in non other than VIM - the one and only.

Updated on June 08, 2022

Comments

byteSlayer almost 2 years

Given an array of values [1,2,0,-5,8,3], how can I get the maximum value in JavaScript?

I know I can write a loop and keep track of the maximum value, but am looking for a more code-efficient way of doing so with the JavaScript syntax.
- Andrew Li almost 7 years
  
  Second result from 'max of array in javascript' on google ^
- byteSlayer almost 7 years
  
  Agree, maybe edit the other to include the word armax though... Coming from python, that's what I instictively googled and nothing came up...
- Andrew Li almost 7 years
  
  I would say it has a reasonable title. Regardless of language, I would have search 'max of array in <language>', but that's just me.
Khauri almost 7 years

Or without the spread operator Math.max.apply(false, arr)
ibrahim mahrir almost 7 years

The spread operator is not efficient.
Andrew Li almost 7 years

@ibrahimmahrir There is no spread 'operator', it's syntax.
ibrahim mahrir almost 7 years

@AndrewLi The three-dot-thing, whatever its real name is..., It's just the worse regarding effeciency.
Andrew Li almost 7 years

Or just ( … ) => … for an implicit return ...
Andrew Li almost 7 years

Also, why through the trouble of a reduce operation when spread syntax exists??
Andrew Li almost 7 years

@ibrahimmahrir Is it? I tested and against reduce it sometimes wins and sometimes loses. Plus efficiency shouldn't even matter, we're talking less than 1 millisecond.
ibrahim mahrir almost 7 years

@AndrewLi Yeah! I don't care about few milliseconds myself. But OP said efficient way, so... + When the array get big (talking about seconds) then the spread syntax becomes a headache.
Andrew Li almost 7 years

@ibrahimmahrir Yes, IIRC Math.max is also restrained to the max length like Array#push is with spread syntax. But reduce wouldn't exactly be volumes faster.
ibrahim mahrir almost 7 years

@AndrewLi I'm not advocating reduce neither. reduce is also not as efficient as a sweet & simple for loop. Last time I did a test: reduce was about x10 slower than a for loop and spread syntax was x40 slower than for loop. Thus, if OP is looking for efficiency, he has to use for.
Manish Giri almost 7 years

@ibrahimmahrir By efficiency, what I think the OP meant was a more concise version, than a regular for loop.
Estus Flask almost 7 years

@ibrahimmahrir Math.max(...arr) will likely be somewhat slower than Math.max.apply(null, arr) but nowhere near as 'not efficient'. Neat JS features are almost always a trade-off. If you have other information that can be proven with numbers, please, consider providing an answer in dupe question. Even though this has been discussed on SO countless times, new good answers are always good.
Bergi almost 7 years

You might want to provide some reasonable default value that is returned when the array is empty, such a 0, -1 or -Infinity.
Admin almost 7 years

Math.max(..arr) will typically be compiled into Math.max.apply, so there's no performance penalty.