132

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
Felix Kling
  • 705,106
  • 160
  • 1,004
  • 1,072
Matt
  • 3,680
  • 5
  • 21
  • 33

7 Answers7

162

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, as indexOf 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 as

if (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 to Array.prototype.indexOf and String.prototype.includes, for consistency.


Further information:

Felix Kling
  • 705,106
  • 160
  • 1,004
  • 1,072
  • 2
    Only half the truth. Also different: missing elements are treated as `undefined` by `.includes()` and are not considered by `.indexOf()`. – Robert Siemer Mar 03 '20 at 02:59
18

If you wonder about performances, for the moment, indexOf is faster, but this JSperf test tend to show that more the time pass, more includes() will be faster than indexOf (i guess it will be optimized further).

IMHO, i also prefer to write if (arr.includes(el)) {} since it is clearer and more maintainable than if (arr.indexOf(el) !== -1) {}

GLAND_PROPRE
  • 3,318
  • 2
  • 21
  • 47
  • 1
    Seems like the difference in performance is not that obvious. My mobile Firefox shows that indexOf is actually faster. Some Chrome versions acts the same... But the difference seems negligible anyway in today's implementations. – Nux Feb 25 '18 at 11:03
  • Just opened a console and tested it: `let allElements = [...document.getElementsByTagName('*')]; let t1 = performance.now(); for(let i=0;i<1e7;i++){ randEl = allElements[Math.floor(Math.random()*allElements.length)]; const isIn = allElements.includes(randEl); } let t2 = performance.now(); for(let i=0;i<1e7;i++){ randEl = allElements[Math.floor(Math.random()*allElements.length)]; const isIn = (allElements.indexOf(randEl)>-1); } let t3 = performance.now(); console.log('Include time:', t2-t1); console.log('indexOd time:', t3-t2);` Result: includes 40 times faster. – Shimon S Oct 01 '20 at 14:24
9

.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.

Usage in Array

(Link to ECMAScript Specification)

  1. indexOf uses Strict Equality Comparison whereas includes uses the SameValueZero algorithm. Because of this reason, the following two points of differences arise.

  2. 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
  1. The behavior is also different in case of undefined.
let arr = [ , , ];

arr.indexOf(undefined); // returns -1; meaning undefined is not present
arr.includes(undefined); // returns true

Usage in String

(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

Performance

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.

History

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.

Srishti
  • 669
  • 7
  • 19
  • `indexOf` gives `true` after explicitly setting `undefined` into an array: `let arr=[undefined];` or `let arr=[];arr[0]=undefined;` Now `arr.indexOf(undefined) === 0` – Jay Dadhania Dec 28 '19 at 11:07
  • You are the only one indicating the difference with `undefined`: The reason is that `.includes` treats missing elements as `undefined`, while `.indexOf()` ignores them. You can also “create” missing elements with `arr[number beyond length] = whatever`. – Robert Siemer Mar 03 '20 at 03:09
  • No one was asking for strings, but your remarks suggest that `.includes()` only eats strings. In reality both methods coerce anything to a string as good as they can. Regex is specifically excluded as argument to `.includes()` to _allow for future additions to the standard_ according to the current draft. – Robert Siemer Mar 03 '20 at 03:17
6

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.

Sebastian Gomez
  • 604
  • 6
  • 9
  • Use indexOf if you want to support old browsers which is usually a good idea. Use includes if your code is not going to be executed in a browser and therefore you know that you don't need to support old browsers like IE which I guarantee you people still use. Don't use either if you need to test for values like NaN or undefined and still want to support old browsers. Just use an old fashioned for loop instead. There's no shame in writing a for loop and supporting IE for people who don't know that IE isn't a modern browser or don't have any choice because they're on a public/work computer. – PHP Guru Mar 04 '21 at 15:38
1

indexOf() and includes() can both be used to find elements in an array, however each function yields different return values.

indexOf returns a number (-1 if element not present in the array, or array position if the element is present).

includes() returns a boolean value (true or false).

segFault
  • 3,110
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28
Kruti
  • 91
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    Hi Kruti, this question has been already answered and it has an accepted answer. Furthermore, you can see how your answer contains only info already said in other answers. The question, in the end, is already 4 years old. Please provide guidance on newest questions or unanswered ones. Thank you – leonardfactory Apr 26 '20 at 10:46
1

Internet explorer does not support includes, if that helps you decide.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/includes#Browser_compatibility

0

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.

  • if(array.includes('something')) { //doSomething } if(array.indexOf('something') > -1) { //doSomething } - diff between these two is > -1, const incls = array.includes('something') || const inOf = array.indexOf('something') > -1; which returns true or false. not much difference – Lakshman Kambam Apr 21 '21 at 08:33