Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply foosssdsad aas

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

var arrow = () => {test("Hello")}
var binded = () => test.bind(null, "Hello")

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
test.bind(null, "Hello")();
call
test.call(null, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);
arrow
arrow();
binded
binded()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply
arrow
binded

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'm ready to dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark that tests the performance of different function call methods: direct calls, bind(), call(), apply(), arrow functions, and their variations (binded()). The goal is to compare the execution speed of these methods on various browsers and devices.

**Function Call Methods Compared**

1. **Direct Calls**: A straightforward function call without any modifications.
2. **Bind()**: The bind() method sets the context for a function call. In this case, it's used to set the `this` keyword to `null`.
3. **Call()**: Similar to bind(), but uses an explicit argument list (`test.call(null, "Hello")`).
4. **Apply()**: Another variant of the apply() method, which sets the context and arguments for a function call.
5. **Arrow Functions**: A new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015, which creates functions without the need for `function` keywords or the `new` keyword.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Direct Calls**: Simple and straightforward, but may not be as efficient due to the overhead of function creation.
* **Bind()**, **Call()**, and **Apply()**: These methods can provide more control over the function call context, but also introduce additional overhead compared to direct calls.
* **Arrow Functions**: A concise and expressive syntax, but may not be suitable for all use cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmarks explicitly uses any libraries. However, it's essential to note that some browsers might include internal libraries or frameworks that could impact performance.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The benchmark uses ECMAScript 2015+ features like arrow functions (`=>`). If you're not familiar with these features, they are a new way of creating functions in modern JavaScript. They eliminate the need for `function` keywords and can improve code readability.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to test alternative function call methods or optimize performance further, consider exploring:

* **Closures**: Creating functions within other functions to create private variables and behaviors.
* **Prototypal Inheritance**: Using objects to inherit properties and behavior from other objects.
* **Native Web Workers**: Utilizing the `Web Workers` API to execute tasks in parallel without blocking the main thread.

Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions or need further clarification on any of these topics!

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/16.5.1 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	30537496.0 Ops/sec
bind	13686830.0 Ops/sec
call	30165506.0 Ops/sec
apply	30560774.0 Ops/sec
arrow	7732148.5 Ops/sec
binded	4220489.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

arrow

binded

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):