# Items also occurs in a set

You're given strings J representing the types of stones that are jewels, and S representing the stones you have. Each character in S is a type of stone you have. You want to know how many of the stones you have are also jewels.

The letters in J are guaranteed distinct, and all characters in J and S are letters. Letters are case sensitive, so "a" is considered a different type of stone from "A".

Example 1:

Input: J = "aA", S = "aAAbbbb" Output: 3

Example 2:

Input: J = "z", S = "ZZ" Output: 0

Note:

S and J will consist of letters and have length at most 50. The characters in J are distinct.

My functional solution

const findNumberOfJewels = (j,s) =>  [...s].reduce((num, x) => [...j].includes(x) ? num + 1 : num , 0);

console.log(findNumberOfJewels("aA", "aAAbbbb"));


My imperative solution

function findNumberOfJewels2(j,s) {
let res = 0;
const set = new Set(j);
for (const x of s) {
if (set.has(x)) { ++res; }
}
return res;
};

console.log(findNumberOfJewels2("aA", "aAAbbbb"));


The functional approach is almost certainly faster despite having worse big-O — $$\O(j \cdot s)\$$ functional vs $$\O(j + s)\$$ imperative — because linear searches of small arrays are very fast.
You don't need to destructure j and adding a boolean to a number coerces the boolean to 0 or 1.
sum is a better name than num and c is a good name for a character iterator.
const findNumberOfJewels = (j,s) => [...s].reduce( (sum, c) => sum + j.includes(c),  0 );

• +1 Be careful when making assumptions about JS performance.Running both OPs solutions over a wide range of inputs, the functional solution is from 25% -75% the speed fastTime / slowTime of the imperative. Your modified version is a significant improvement over the OP's, under specific circumstances can be much faster then the imp version (also much slower ). But the alloc of [...s] and coercion of j.includes to Number means it will always be slower (by ~10%) than findJ(j,s) {var r=0,i=s.length;while(i--){j.includes(s[i])&&r++}return r} (Note that GC cost of [...s] is not timed) – Blindman67 Apr 22 at 14:37