Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply v2

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
bound();
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 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct call	14284669.0 Ops/sec
bind	14321766.0 Ops/sec
call	13024866.0 Ops/sec
apply	12162714.0 Ops/sec

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of four different ways to call a function in JavaScript: direct call, bind(), call(), and apply(). The test case uses a simple function `test(msg)` that takes a message as an argument.

**Options compared:**

1. **Direct call**: This method calls the function directly by its name without any modifications.
2. **Bind()**: This method binds the function to an object, effectively changing the context in which it will be executed.
3. **Call()**: Similar to bind(), but allows specifying a different object and arguments to pass to the function.
4. **Apply()**: This method applies a function to a specific set of arguments, similar to call().

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Direct call**: Simplest approach, fastest, and most intuitive. However, it may not be suitable for functions that rely on context changes or dynamic scope management.
2. **Bind()**: Can be useful when you want to change the function's behavior based on its execution context. However, it can lead to complex code and unexpected results if not used carefully.
3. **Call()**: Provides more flexibility than bind(), allowing for additional arguments and a different object context. However, it may be slower due to the overhead of creating an object.
4. **Apply()**: Similar to call(), but with a single array of arguments instead of multiple arguments. This can lead to faster performance in certain cases.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript practices.

**Benchmark preparation code explanation:**

The script preparation code defines a function `test(msg)` that takes a message as an argument. It then creates three more functions by binding, calling, and applying the original `test` function with different arguments:

* `bound`: Bind the `test` function to `null` with the string `"Hello"` as an argument.
* `call`: Call the `test` function directly with `null` and the string `"Hello"` as arguments.
* `apply`: Apply the `test` function to a new object (an array) with the string `"Hello"` as its only element.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Use a profiler**: Instead of benchmarking specific functions or syntaxes, use a profiler like Chrome DevTools' Profiler or Node.js's built-in `performance` module to identify performance bottlenecks in your code.
2. **Test with different JavaScript engines**: Different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) might optimize certain features or syntaxes differently. Testing with multiple engines can provide insights into these variations.
3. **Focus on real-world scenarios**: Instead of benchmarking specific functions or syntaxes, focus on measuring the performance of your code in realistic scenarios, such as handling user input or data processing.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives requires a different approach and expertise level compared to the provided benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply v2 (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 one month ago):