Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply foosssdsad

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

Tests:

direct call
(function foo() { test("Hello"); })()
bind
test.bind(null, "Hello")();
call
test.call(null, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct call	26930536.0 Ops/sec
bind	13493545.0 Ops/sec
call	29203852.0 Ops/sec
apply	29864940.0 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 benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of four different methods to invoke a function in JavaScript: direct call, bind, call, and apply. The test function `test(msg)` is defined with a script preparation code that simply assigns the input message `msg` to the variable `d`.

**Options compared**

Here's what's being compared:

* **Direct call**: Invoking the function directly by calling its name as a function (e.g., `test("Hello");`)
* **Bind**: Binding the function to an object using the `bind()` method (e.g., `test.bind(null, "Hello")()`)
* **Call**: Invoking the bound function with an object and its arguments (e.g., `test.call(null, "Hello")`)
* **Apply**: Invoking the function with an object and its arguments using the `apply()` method (e.g., `test.apply(null, ["Hello"])`)

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Direct call**: Simple and straightforward, but can lead to issues when dealing with large numbers of methods or complex function signatures.
2. **Bind**: Allows for more flexibility in invoking functions with different objects, but requires careful consideration of the object's context.
3. **Call**: Can be less intuitive than direct calls, especially when working with bound functions.
4. **Apply**: Provides a way to invoke functions with specific contexts and arguments, but can lead to performance overhead due to the additional indirection.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, the `bind()`, `call()`, and `apply()` methods are built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, as the test cases focus on invoking a simple function with different approaches.

**Other considerations:**

* Performance: The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each approach. This provides insight into the performance characteristics of each method.
* Browser-specific behavior: The benchmark results show browser-specific behavior, which is expected due to differences in JavaScript engine implementations and optimizations.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to invoke functions include:

* **Arrow functions**: Can be used to create simple, concise functions that automatically bind their context (e.g., `(msg) => test(msg)`).
* **Constructor functions**: Can be used to create objects with specific contexts (e.g., `function Test(msg) { test(msg); }`).
* **Function factories**: Can be used to create functions that take arguments and return the actual function to invoke (e.g., `function createTest(msg) { return function() { test(msg); }; }`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer significant performance advantages over direct calls, binds, calls, or applies, depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply foosssdsad (version: 0)

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

Created: one year 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 2 months ago):