Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (with precreated arg variables)

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

var arg = "Hello";
var args = [arg];

Tests:

direct call
test(arg);
bind
test.bind(null, arg)();
call
test.call(null, arg);
apply
test.apply(null, args);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different ways to invoke a function in JavaScript: direct call, bind, call, and apply.

**What is tested?**

The test cases compare the execution speed of the following functions:

1. `test(arg);` (direct call): This is the original function invocation without any additional setup.
2. `test.bind(null, arg)();` (bind): This uses the `bind()` method to create a new function that invokes `test` with `arg` as its first argument.
3. `test.call(null, arg);` (call): This uses the `call()` method to invoke `test` with `arg` as its first argument.
4. `test.apply(null, args);` (apply): This uses the `apply()` method to invoke `test` with `args` as an array of arguments.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four options:

1. Direct call (`test(arg)`)
2. Bind (`test.bind(null, arg)()`)
3. Call (`test.call(null, arg)`)
4. Apply (`test.apply(null, args)`)

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Direct call (test(arg))**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May not be the most efficient way to invoke a function, especially if it's called repeatedly with different arguments.
2. **Bind (`test.bind(null, arg)()`)**:
	* Pros: Allows for more control over the function invocation, e.g., changing the context or adding additional arguments.
	* Cons: Creates a new function object each time bind is used, which can lead to memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
3. **Call (`test.call(null, arg)`)**:
	* Pros: Similar to direct call but allows for more control over the context in which the function is invoked.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as direct call if the function is called repeatedly with different arguments.
4. **Apply (`test.apply(null, args)`)**:
	* Pros: Allows for invoking a function with an array of arguments and setting the context explicitly.
	* Cons: Can lead to performance overhead due to the creation of a new function object.

**Library used**

None (no external libraries are mentioned in the provided code).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses arrow functions (`test.bind(null, arg)`), which are supported since ECMAScript 2015. However, this is not explicitly highlighted as a special feature or syntax, and its use is straightforward for anyone familiar with JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

In addition to the four options tested in the benchmark, other ways to invoke a function in JavaScript include:

1. `func()` (a function call like direct call)
2. `new func(arg)` (creating a new instance of the function using the constructor syntax)
3. Using a function expression with parentheses (`(function() { ... })()`)

These alternatives are not included in the benchmark, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on the specific use case.

Overall, the benchmark provides a good insight into the performance differences between various ways to invoke functions in JavaScript, which can be useful for optimizing code or understanding performance bottlenecks.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 11) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.1.35.103 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 100 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct call	5575892.0 Ops/sec
bind	4509693.0 Ops/sec
call	5313007.5 Ops/sec
apply	5030097.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (with precreated arg variables) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind vs call vs apply

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):