Benchmark: call vs [method] vs direct

Script Preparation code:

var object = {
  count: 0,
  sum: function(value) {
	this.count += value;
  }
};

function one(value, method) {
  method.call(object, value);
}

function two(value, method) {
  object[method](value);
}

function three(value) {
  object.sum(value);
}

Tests:

call
count = 0; one(10.5, object.sum);
[method]
count = 0; two(10.5, "sum");
direct
count = 0; three(10.5);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call
[method]
direct

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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered in each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to call a method on an object:

1. **`call()`**: This is a traditional JavaScript method that takes the `this` context as its first argument.
2. **`[method]` syntax**: This is a shorthand way of calling a method on an object, where you use square brackets `[]` instead of dot notation (`.`). For example, `object.sum(value)` becomes `object["sum"](value)`.
3. **Direct access to the method**: In this approach, we're simply accessing the `sum` method directly on the `object` without any additional syntax.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `object` with a `count` property and a `sum` method that increments the `count`. There are three functions:

* `one(value, method)`: Takes two arguments: `value` and `method`. It calls the `method` function on the `object` context.
* `two(value, method)`: Takes two arguments: `value` and `method`. It accesses the `method` property on the `object` and calls it with the `value`.
* `three(value)`: Simply calls the `sum` method directly on the `object`.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **`call`**: Calls `one(10.5, object.sum)` which increments the `count` property of the `object`. This tests the traditional `call()` approach.
2. **`[method]`**: Calls `two(10.5, "sum")`, which accesses the `sum` method on the `object` and calls it with the `value`. This tests the shorthand syntax `[method]`.
3. **`direct`**: Calls `three(10.5)`, which directly accesses the `sum` method on the `object`. This tests direct access to the method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **`call()`**: Pros:
	+ Clear and explicit syntax
	+ Easy to understand and debug
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower due to the overhead of creating an object context
* **`[method]` syntax**: Pros:
	+ Concise and readable
	+ Can be faster since it avoids the object context creation overhead
* Cons:
	+ May require additional care when handling method names as strings
* **Direct access to the method**: Pros:
	+ Fastest approach since it bypasses object context creation
* Cons:
	+ Less explicit and may be harder to understand for some readers

**Library**

None of the test cases use a specific library, but they do rely on the built-in JavaScript `Object` type and its methods.

**Special JS Feature**

The `[method]` syntax is a shorthand way of calling a method on an object using square brackets instead of dot notation. This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 5 (ES5).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare might include:

* Using `bind()` or `arrow functions` to achieve similar results
* Comparing performance with different JavaScript engines or versions
* Adding more test cases, such as using different types of objects or method names

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 29 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
call	3323234.5 Ops/sec
[method]	4200808.0 Ops/sec
direct	4194534.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

call vs [method] vs direct (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call vs [method] vs direct

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call

[method]

direct

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):