Benchmark: bind exists vs apply

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

var test2 = test.bind(null)

Tests:

bind
test2('hello')
apply
test.apply(null, ['hello'])
call
test.call(null, 'hello')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
apply
call

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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	11566594.0 Ops/sec
apply	10758211.0 Ops/sec
call	10796327.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing three different ways to call a function: `bind()`, `call()`, and `apply()`.

The script preparation code defines two functions: `test` and `test2`. The `test` function takes a message as an argument, but it's not used anywhere in the test. Instead, the `test2` function is created by binding the `test` function to no arguments (`null`) using `bind()`.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. `bind`: Calls `test2('hello')`.
2. `apply`: Calls `test.apply(null, ['hello'])`.
3. `call`: Calls `test.call(null, 'hello')`.

Each test case is a separate benchmark that measures the execution time of each function.

**Options Compared**

The three options being compared are:

* **bind()**: Creates a new function that has its `this` context set to a specific value (in this case, `null`). The function's first argument is ignored.
* **call()**: Calls a function with a specified `this` context and arguments. In this case, `null` is the `this` context, and `['hello']` are the arguments.
* **apply()**: Similar to `call()`, but it takes an array of arguments instead of individual arguments.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary:

* **bind()**: Pros:
	+ Efficient for frequent method calls with a fixed `this` context.
	+ Can improve performance by avoiding the overhead of creating a new function object.
Cons:
	+ Requires careful consideration of the `this` context to avoid unexpected behavior.
	+ May not be suitable for dynamic or changing `this` contexts.
* **call()**: Pros:
	+ Flexible and easy to use, as it allows setting any `this` context and passing multiple arguments.
Cons:
	+ May incur overhead due to function creation and argument processing.
* **apply()**: Pros:
	+ Similar to `call()`, but with a more concise syntax for passing multiple arguments.
Cons:
	+ Also may incur overhead due to function creation and argument processing.

**Library**

None of the test cases use any libraries. The functions are defined in the benchmark script itself.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested. The focus is on the three basic methods for calling functions: `bind()`, `call()`, and `apply()`.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches, some options could be:

* **Arrow functions**: Instead of using `bind()`, `call()`, or `apply()`, an arrow function (`test2 => test2('hello')`) can be used. Arrow functions are more concise and efficient but may not provide the same level of control as the other methods.
* **new Function()**: A new function object can be created using the `Function` constructor, allowing for more flexibility in setting the `this` context and passing arguments.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its own trade-offs and use cases. The choice of method depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your application.

Related benchmarks:

bind exists vs apply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs apply vs call

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

apply

call

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):