Benchmark: Direct call vs bind calls

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  return this.a + msg
}

class A {
  a = 'a';
  test = test;
}

var a = new A();
a.bar = a.test.bind(a);

Tests:

direct call
a.test('b');
bind
a.bar('b');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind

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/16.6 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	10532576.0 Ops/sec
bind	9524124.0 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 provided benchmark definition and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests two approaches to invoking the `test` method on an object `a`. The test cases are:

1. **Direct call**: `a.test('b');`
2. **Bind call**: `a.bar('b');`

where `bar` is a property of `a` that is bound to the `test` method using the `bind` method.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `A` with a property `a` initialized to `'a'`. The `test` method is defined, which takes a message as an argument. The `bar` property of `a` is then set to the result of calling `bind` on `a.test` with `a` as the context.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Direct call**: Invoking `test('b');` directly on the object `a`. This approach uses a simple method invocation syntax.
2. **Bind call**: Invoking `bar('b');`, which is equivalent to invoking `test('b')` using the bound `bar` method.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Direct call**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward
		+ No additional overhead from binding
	* Cons:
		+ May result in slower performance due to method invocation overhead (e.g., checking for method existence, resolving the method, etc.)
2. **Bind call**
	* Pros:
		+ Reduces method invocation overhead by binding the method to the object context upfront
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional memory allocation and bookkeeping for the bound method

**Library and purpose**

None of the libraries are used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that using `bind` to create a new function can be a useful technique in certain situations.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to modify the benchmark to compare additional approaches, here are some ideas:

1. **Arrow function**: Using an arrow function (`a => a.test('b')`) instead of a traditional function expression.
2. **Proto chain lookup**: Invoking `test` using the object's prototype chain (e.g., `Object.getPrototypeOf(a).test('b')`).
3. **Method invocation with `call` or `apply`**: Using `a.test.call(a)` or `a.test.apply(a)`.
4. **Using a library like `lodash`**: Leveraging a library function that can simplify method invocation, such as `_.bind()`.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind calls (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

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):