📎 Implement useArrayLiterals - eslint/no-array-constructor

[unvalley]

Description

no-array-constructor - ESLint - Pluggable JavaScript Linter

Want to contribute? Lets you know you are interested! We will assign you to the issue to prevent several people to work on the same issue. Don't worry, we can unassign you later if you are no longer interested in the issue! Read our contributing guide and analyzer contributing guide.

Name suggestions are welcome.

[Kazuhiro-Mimaki]

I'm interested in but I have never contributed biome rules, nor oss by rust.
Can I try this issue?

[unvalley]

@Kazuhiro-Mimaki Hi, yes we can help! Firstly, I recommend reading CONTRIBUTING.md and other PRs implement lint rules.

[Conaclos]

I wonder if the rule should also ban new Array(length), as this creates an array with holes (which is bad for performance), and is only marginally useful for pre-initializing very large arrays (65 000 elements and more - and even in that case, I think using a literal array is fine).

If we accept new Array(length), we should use a better name such as noNewArrayInitiialization.

[unvalley]

If we trust the results of this benchmark, it appears that insertion of an element into an array with holes is not that different from using a literal array.

The new Array(lengh) looks slightly worse in performance, but I am not sure if the lint rule should prohibit it.

[minht11]

If user wants to create explicit size array, they could use

const length = 10;
const array = Array.from({length})

It is more explicit and performance difference should be nonexistant compared Array(length)
See also unicorn/no-new-array

[Conaclos]

If user wants to create explicit size array, they could use

const length = 10;
const array = Array.from({length})

Not sure users will appreciate the workaround.

Ok, let's allow new Array(length) for now. We could change this later, or add a new rule to ban it.

@unvalley and @minht11 what do you think about renaming the rule to useLiteralArray?

[minht11]

I see that biome already has quite a few rules with word literal in them. So it sounds good to me from consistency and semantics standpoint.

Personally I would flip it to useArrayLiteral because it sounds more natural to me, but thats minor.

[unvalley]

We have following named rules (related?):

• useNumericLiterals (since v1.0.0)
• useRegexLiterals (since v1.3.0)

useArrayLiterals?

[Conaclos]

It seems that we have a winner: useArrayLiterals :)