Beyond the improved readability, is there any advantage to includes
over indexOf
? They seem identical to me.
What is the difference between this
var x = [1,2,3].indexOf(1) > -1; //true
And this?
var y = [1,2,3].includes(1); //true
tl;dr: NaN
is treated differently:
[NaN].indexOf(NaN) > -1
is false
[NaN].includes(NaN)
is true
From the proposal:
Motivation
When using ECMAScript arrays, it is commonly desired to determine if the array includes an element. The prevailing pattern for this is
if (arr.indexOf(el) !== -1) { ... }
with various other possibilities, e.g.
arr.indexOf(el) >= 0
, or even~arr.indexOf(el)
.These patterns exhibit two problems:
- They fail to "say what you mean": instead of asking about whether the array includes an element, you ask what the index of the first occurrence of that element in the array is, and then compare it or bit-twiddle it, to determine the answer to your actual question.
- They fail for
NaN
, asindexOf
uses Strict Equality Comparison and thus[NaN].indexOf(NaN) === -1
.Proposed Solution
We propose the addition of an
Array.prototype.includes
method, such that the above patterns can be rewritten asif (arr.includes(el)) { ... }
This has almost the same semantics as the above, except that it uses the SameValueZero comparison algorithm instead of Strict Equality Comparison, thus making
[NaN].includes(NaN)
true.Thus, this proposal solves both problems seen in existing code.
We additionally add a
fromIndex
parameter, similar toArray.prototype.indexOf
andString.prototype.includes
, for consistency.
Further information:
Technically, the only difference is how NaN
and undefined
are treated. They will not be findable when using indexOf
arr.indexOf('blah') !== -1
is less more readable and maintainable. On the other hand, arr.includes('blah')
does what it says and it is obvious that it returns a boolean
.
includes
also is of no use if you want to know where the string is in the array.
Concerning performances: according to this article on the subject there are no noticeable difference although includes
may be a very little bit slower.
indexOf
was created way before includes
.
.indexOf()
and .includes()
methods can be used to search for an element in an array or to search for a character/substring in a given string.
(Link to ECMAScript Specification)
indexOf
uses Strict Equality Comparison whereas includes
uses the SameValueZero algorithm. Because of this reason, the following two points of differences arise.
As pointed out by Felix Kling, the behavior is different in case of NaN
.
let arr = [NaN];
arr.indexOf(NaN); // returns -1; meaning NaN is not present
arr.includes(NaN); // returns true
undefined
.let arr = [ , , ];
arr.indexOf(undefined); // returns -1; meaning undefined is not present
arr.includes(undefined); // returns true
(Link to ECMAScript Specification)
1.
If you pass a RegExp to indexOf
, it will treat the RegExp as a string and will return the index of the string, if found. However, if you pass a RegExp to includes
, it will throw an exception.
let str = "javascript";
str.indexOf(/\w/); // returns -1 even though the elements match the regex because /\w/ is treated as string
str.includes(/\w/); // throws TypeError: First argument to String.prototype.includes must not be a regular expression
As GLAND_PROPRE pointed out, includes
may be a little (very tiny) bit slower (for it needs to check for a regex as the first argument) than indexOf
but in reality, this doesn't make much difference and is negligible.
String.prototype.includes()
was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 whereas Array.prototype.includes()
was introduced in ECMAScript 2016. With regards to browser support, use them wisely.
String.prototype.indexOf()
and Array.prototype.indexOf()
are present in ES5 edition of ECMAScript and hence supported by all browsers.
Conceptually you should use indexOf when you want to use the position indexOf just give you to extract the value or operate over the array, i.e using slice, shift or split after you got the position of the element. On the other hand, Use Array.includes only to know if the value is inside the array and not the position because you don't care about it.
indexOf is the older way to check if something is in the array , the new method is better because you don't have to write a condition for being (-1) , so that's why for use the include() method that returns you a boolean.
array.indexOf('something') // return index or -1
array.includes('something') // return true of false
so for finding index the first one is better but for checking being or not the second method is more useful.
The answers and examples were all great. However (at first glance), it made me misunderstood that includes
will always return true
when using undefined
.
Hence I am including the example to elaborate includes can be used to check for undefined and NaN values wherelse indexOf can't
//Array without undefined values and without NaN values.
//includes will return false because there are no NaN and undefined values
const myarray = [1,2,3,4]
console.log(myarray.includes(undefined)) //returns false
console.log(myarray.includes(NaN)) //returns false
//Array with undefined values and Nan values.
//includes will find them and return true
const myarray2 = [1,NaN, ,4]
console.log(myarray2.includes(undefined)) //returns true
console.log(myarray2.includes(NaN)) //returns true
console.log(myarray2.indexOf(undefined) > -1) //returns false
console.log(myarray2.indexOf(NaN) > -1) //returns false
Summary
includes
can be used to check for undefined and NaN values in arrayindexOf
cannot be used to check for undefined and NaN values in array
includes
has much worse browser support. – Quentinincludes
is not part of ES6/ES2015. It is a proposal for the next version of ECMAScript and will be added this year. – Felix Klingincludes
is NOT supported in IE at all – ZvKaincludes
is around 50 times slower than indexOf, at least in Chrome. Beware! – Seven Systems