Benchmark: Bind vs closure declaration

Script Preparation code:

function toBind(param) {
  return param * 2;
}
function bind() {
  var rnd = Math.random();
  return toBind.bind(null, rnd);
}

function closure() {
  var rnd = Math.random();
  return inner;
  function inner() {
    return rnd * 2;
  }
}

Tests:

create bind
var fnc = bind();
create closure
var fnc = closure()
use bind
var fnc = bind(); var out = fnc();
use closure()
var fnc = closure(); var out = fnc();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
create bind
create closure
use bind
use closure()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to creating closures: binding (`bind`) and declaring closures directly within a function.

In the `Script Preparation Code`, we see two functions:

1. `toBind`: A simple function that takes an input `param` and returns it multiplied by 2.
2. `bind`: This function creates a new bound version of `toBind` with a specific context (`null`) using the `bind()` method.

In the `closure` function, we see a similar pattern:

1. `inner`: A nested function that returns a value (a random number multiplied by 2).
2. `closure`: This function declares an anonymous inner function `inner` and returns it directly.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options for creating closures:

1. **Binding (`bind`)**: Creating a new bound version of the function using `bind()`.
	* Pros: Can provide a specific context for the bound function, which can be useful in certain situations.
	* Cons: May add overhead due to the creation of a new bound object.
2. **Direct Declaration**: Declaring closures directly within a function using the syntax `var fnc = inner;` or `fnc = closure()`.
	* Pros: Typically more efficient and straightforward, as no additional object is created.
	* Cons: May not provide a specific context for the closure, which can lead to unexpected behavior.

**Other Considerations**

* **Context**: The benchmark does not explicitly test the effects of binding on different contexts. In some situations, using `bind()` might be necessary when working with functions that need to access a specific object or environment.
* **Performance**: While direct declaration is often faster, the performance difference between these two approaches can be negligible in many cases.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries explicitly used in this benchmark. However, JavaScript does provide some special features like `bind()` and closures that are being leveraged here.

The benchmark utilizes JavaScript's functional programming concepts, such as first-class functions (functions that can be assigned to variables) and closures (functions that have access to their own scope).

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizations for creating closures, some possible alternatives include:

* Using `箭头函数` (arrow functions), which provide a more concise syntax for defining small, one-time-use functions.
* Employing techniques like memoization or caching to optimize closure performance in specific use cases.
* Investigating other JavaScript engines or interpreters that may exhibit different behavior or optimization strategies.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach often depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
create bind	9133903.0 Ops/sec
create closure	9046198.0 Ops/sec
use bind	9066727.0 Ops/sec
use closure()	8586118.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs closure declaration (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: create bind vs create closure vs use bind vs use closure()

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

create bind

create closure

use bind

use closure()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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