Benchmark: binded vs arrow - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

class A {
  constructor() {
    this.data = 0
    this.binded = this.binded.bind(this)
  }
  arrow = () => {
    this.data = this.data + 1
    return this
  }
  binded() {
    this.data = this.data + 1
    return this
  }
}
a = new A

Tests:

arrow
a.arrow()
binded
a.binded()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrow
binded

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to bind a method to an object in JavaScript: using the `bind()` method and using an arrow function.

**Options Compared**

* **`this.binded = this.binded.bind(this)`**: This is the traditional way to bind a method to an object. The `bind()` method returns a new function that, when called, calls the original function with the specified arguments.
* **`a.arrow = () => { ... }`**: This is the alternative approach using an arrow function. Arrow functions are a shorthand for creating small anonymous functions and do not have their own `this` context.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional Binding (bind())**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, widely supported.
	+ Cons: Creates a new function object that needs to be assigned to the property, which can lead to performance overhead.
* **Arrow Function Approach**:
	+ Pros: More concise, does not create a new function object, and preserves the original `this` context.
	+ Cons: May be less intuitive for some developers, requires understanding of arrow functions.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash or Ramda provide alternative ways to bind functions or manipulate objects.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses an arrow function (`=>`) and a class syntax (`class A { ... }`). These are modern JavaScript features introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark only compares two specific approaches: traditional binding using `bind()` and arrow functions.
* It does not account for other factors that might affect performance, such as:
	+ Method name and length
	+ Number of method calls per second
	+ Object size and structure

**Alternative Benchmarking Approaches**

Other alternatives to benchmarking JavaScript microbenchmarks include:

1. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A collection of benchmarks designed specifically for Google's V8 JavaScript engine.
2. **JSPerf**: A benchmarking tool that allows users to create and share benchmark tests, with a focus on modern JavaScript features.
3. **Benchmark.js**: A library that provides a simple way to write and run benchmarks in Node.js.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking approach depends on the specific use case, target audience, and desired level of detail.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36 Edg/99.0.1150.39

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrow	6627256.5 Ops/sec
binded	6823196.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

binded vs arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrow vs binded

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrow

binded

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):