Benchmark: Spread operator vs apply vs apply undefined. length 6

Script Preparation code:

function test() { console.log(arguments[arguments.length - 1]); }
var using = (new Array(6)).fill(null).map((e, i) => (i));

Tests:

spread
test(...using);
apply
test.apply(null, using)
apply undefined
test.apply(undefined, using)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
apply
apply undefined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spread	1104208.9 Ops/sec
apply	1123444.8 Ops/sec
apply undefined	1012493.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of three different ways to call a function with arbitrary arguments dynamically:

1. **Spread operator (`...`)**: This syntax allows you to pass multiple values as individual arguments to a function.
2. **`apply()` method**: The `apply()` method is used to invoke a function with a given `this` value and an array of arguments.
3. **`apply(undefined)`** (or `undefined` as the first argument): This is similar to the previous option, but passes `undefined` as the `this` value instead.

The test aims to determine which approach is the most efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Spread operator (`...`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Is more concise and readable than using `apply()` or other methods.
		+ Can be easier to understand for developers familiar with this syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new array, which can lead to slower performance compared to other approaches.
2. **`apply()` method**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows more flexibility and control over the function invocation process, as it accepts both `this` value and an array of arguments.
		+ Can be useful for situations where you need to pass a variable number of arguments with different types (e.g., some arguments are objects, while others are primitives).
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the additional overhead of invoking the `apply()` method and accessing its internal state.
3. **`apply(undefined)`**
	* Pros: This approach is similar to the previous one, but it passes `undefined` as the `this` value, which might be a more "native" behavior for some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
	* Cons:
		+ May not work as expected or lead to errors if the function expects a non-`undefined` `this` value.

**Library and its purpose**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. The benchmark script itself only includes the `test()` function, which is defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section of the JSON data.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines might have additional features or optimizations that could impact performance under specific conditions (e.g., `const` and `let` declarations, arrow functions).

**Alternative approaches**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

1. **Using `bind()` instead of `apply()`**: This method is another way to invoke a function with an arbitrary `this` value.
2. **Using `new` and passing an object with the desired properties**: Instead of using the spread operator or `apply()`, you could create an object with the desired properties and pass it as an argument.
3. **Using recursion instead of loops**: This approach would involve defining a recursive function that takes an array of arguments and processes them individually, rather than using an iterative approach.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the performance characteristics or behavior of the benchmark, so it's essential to test and verify their results thoroughly.

Related benchmarks:

Spread operator vs apply vs apply undefined. length 6 (version: 0)

Compare the differing ways you can call a function with arbitrary arguments dynamically

Comparing performance of: spread vs apply vs apply undefined

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

apply

apply undefined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):