Benchmark: bind vs closure v2

Tests:

bind

function fn1() {
    return 1 + 1;
}

function fn2() {
    return 2 + 2;
}

function fn3() {
    return 3 + 3;
}

function fn4() {
    return 4 + 4;
}

function createSomething() {
    return [fn1.bind(null), fn2.bind(null), fn3.bind(null), fn4.bind(null)]
}

for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething();

    for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
        a();
        b();
        c();
        d();
    }
}

​x
 
function fn1() {    return 1 + 1;}​function fn2() {    return 2 + 2;}​function fn3() {    return 3 + 3;}​function fn4() {    return 4 + 4;}​function createSomething() {    return [fn1.bind(null), fn2.bind(null), fn3.bind(null), fn4.bind(null)]}​for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {    let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething();​    for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) {        a();        b();        c();        d();    }}

closure

function createSomething() {

    function fn1() {
        return 1 + 1;
    }

    function fn2() {
        return 2 + 2;
    }

    function fn3() {
        return 3 + 3;
    }

    function fn4() {
        return 4 + 4;
    }

    return [fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4]
}

for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething();
    for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
        a();
        b();
        c();
        d();
    }
}

 
function createSomething() {​    function fn1() {        return 1 + 1;    }​    function fn2() {        return 2 + 2;    }​    function fn3() {        return 3 + 3;    }​    function fn4() {        return 4 + 4;    }​    return [fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4]}​for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {    let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething();    for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) {        a();        b();        c();        d();    }}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
bind
closure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	3340.2 Ops/sec
closure	263489.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

Overview

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: binding functions with null (bind) and creating closures over functions (closure). The test creates an array of four bound functions (fn1, fn2, fn3, and fn4) in both cases and executes each function 100 times.

Options being compared

There are two main options:

Binding with null (bind):
- In this approach, the bind() method is used to create a new bound function that calls the original function with null as its context.
- The purpose of binding in this test is to ensure that each function has a fixed context (in this case, null) and does not "remember" any external state or variables from their surrounding scope.
Creating closures over functions (closure):
- In this approach, the original functions are returned as-is without being bound to a specific context using bind().
- The purpose of creating closures in this test is to see how the functions behave when executed with different contexts (i.e., the current execution scope).

Pros and Cons

Binding with null (bind):

Pros:

Provides a fixed context for each function, which can help prevent issues related to "this" or external state leakage.
Can be useful in certain scenarios where a specific context is required.

Cons:

Creates a new bound function object every time bind() is called, which can incur overhead due to the creation of additional objects and potential garbage collection.
May not accurately represent real-world usage, as functions are often used with varying contexts (e.g., event handlers, callback functions).

Creating closures over functions (closure):

Pros:

More closely represents how functions are typically used in JavaScript, where context is often determined by the surrounding scope.
Can provide a more accurate representation of real-world scenarios.

Cons:

May lead to issues related to "this" and external state leakage if not properly managed.
Requires careful consideration of function scoping and context when using closures.

Library usage

In this benchmark, there are no notable library dependencies. However, the bind() method is a built-in JavaScript function that is part of the ECMAScript standard.

Special JS features or syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in the benchmark code.

Other considerations

When using closures, it's essential to be mindful of the following:

Function scope: Closures can capture variables from their surrounding scope, which can lead to unexpected behavior if not properly managed.
Context: The context in which a closure is executed can affect how the function behaves. For example, an arrow function created with () => will inherit the context of its surrounding scope.

Alternatives

Other approaches for testing binding and closures might include:

Using ArrowFunctionExpression instead of FunctionExpression to create arrow functions.
Creating a test framework that simulates different contexts (e.g., using a mocking library) to evaluate how functions behave under various execution scenarios.
Using a benchmarking library that provides more advanced features, such as support for parallel testing or cache invalidation.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: binding functions with `null` (`bind`) and creating closures over functions (`closure`). The test creates an array of four bound functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, `fn3`, and `fn4`) in both cases and executes each function 100 times.

**Options being compared**

There are two main options:

1. **Binding with `null` (`bind`)**:
	* In this approach, the `bind()` method is used to create a new bound function that calls the original function with `null` as its context.
	* The purpose of binding in this test is to ensure that each function has a fixed context (in this case, `null`) and does not "remember" any external state or variables from their surrounding scope.
2. **Creating closures over functions (`closure`)**:
	* In this approach, the original functions are returned as-is without being bound to a specific context using `bind()`.
	* The purpose of creating closures in this test is to see how the functions behave when executed with different contexts (i.e., the current execution scope).

**Pros and Cons**

**Binding with `null` (`bind`)**:

Pros:

* Provides a fixed context for each function, which can help prevent issues related to "this" or external state leakage.
* Can be useful in certain scenarios where a specific context is required.

Cons:

* Creates a new bound function object every time `bind()` is called, which can incur overhead due to the creation of additional objects and potential garbage collection.
* May not accurately represent real-world usage, as functions are often used with varying contexts (e.g., event handlers, callback functions).

**Creating closures over functions (`closure`)**:

Pros:

* More closely represents how functions are typically used in JavaScript, where context is often determined by the surrounding scope.
* Can provide a more accurate representation of real-world scenarios.

Cons:

* May lead to issues related to "this" and external state leakage if not properly managed.
* Requires careful consideration of function scoping and context when using closures.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there are no notable library dependencies. However, the `bind()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in the benchmark code.

**Other considerations**

When using closures, it's essential to be mindful of the following:

* Function scope: Closures can capture variables from their surrounding scope, which can lead to unexpected behavior if not properly managed.
* Context: The context in which a closure is executed can affect how the function behaves. For example, an arrow function created with `() =>` will inherit the context of its surrounding scope.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for testing binding and closures might include:

* Using `ArrowFunctionExpression` instead of `FunctionExpression` to create arrow functions.
* Creating a test framework that simulates different contexts (e.g., using a mocking library) to evaluate how functions behave under various execution scenarios.
* Using a benchmarking library that provides more advanced features, such as support for parallel testing or cache invalidation.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs closure v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs closure

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

closure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):