Benchmark: Bind vs closure déclaration 2

Script Preparation code:


function bind() {
  var rnd = Math.random();
  return toBind.bind(null, rnd);
  function toBind(param) {
    return param * 2;
  }
}

function closure() {
  var rnd = Math.random();
  return inner;
  function inner() {
    return rnd * 2;
  }
}

Tests:

create bind
var fnc = bind();
create closure
var fnc = closure()
use bind
var fnc = bind(); var out = fnc();
use closure()
var fnc = closure(); var out = fnc();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
create bind
create closure
use bind
use closure()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance differences between two approaches: binding a function using `bind()` and creating a closure by defining an inner function inside another function. The test cases create instances of both approaches and execute them to measure their performance.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Binding a function using `bind()`**: This approach creates a new function that wraps the original function with a specific context (in this case, `null`). The binding is done by calling `toBind.bind(null, rnd)`.
2. **Creating a closure**: This approach defines an inner function (`inner`) inside another function (`closure`) and returns the inner function. The closure is created using the `inner` variable.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Binding using `bind()`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient in some cases, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new scope.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly (e.g., binding with an incorrect context).
2. **Creating a closure**:
	* Pros: Creates a self-contained environment for the inner function, which can be beneficial in certain situations (e.g., encapsulation).
	* Cons: Can result in slower performance due to the overhead of creating and managing a new scope.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's purely focused on demonstrating the performance difference between two programming approaches.

**Libraries used**

None.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are some other options:

1. **Arrow functions**: Instead of using `bind()` or closures, you can use arrow functions to create a new function that wraps the original expression.
2. **Function expressions with `this` binding**: You can use a function expression with an explicit `this` binding (e.g., `function f() { return this * 2; }.bind(null)`).
3. **Function composition**: Instead of using closures, you can compose functions to create a new function that performs the desired operation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance benefits as the original approaches or may have their own trade-offs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.0; SAMSUNG SM-A310F) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) SamsungBrowser/21.0 Chrome/110.0.5481.154 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 110 on Android 7.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
create bind	406524.8 Ops/sec
create closure	379599.5 Ops/sec
use bind	408915.9 Ops/sec
use closure()	368016.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs closure déclaration 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: create bind vs create closure vs use bind vs use closure()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

create bind

create closure

use bind

use closure()

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):