Benchmark: .bind() vs function

Script Preparation code:

var fct = function() {};
var obj = {};
var g = fct.bind(obj);
var h = function(...args) { return fct.call(obj, ...args); }

Tests:

test1
g(1,2,3);
test2
h(1,2,3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `bind()` and creating a new function that calls an existing one using `call()` (also known as the "call bind" approach). The script preparation code creates:

1. An empty object `obj`.
2. A function `fct` that takes no arguments.
3. The `g` variable is assigned to the result of binding `fct` to `obj`, effectively creating a new function that calls `fct` with `obj` as its context.
4. Another function `h` is created, which also calls `fct` with `obj` as its context.

**Options being compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`.bind()`**: Creates a new function that calls the original function (`fct`) with a specified context (`obj`).
2. **"call bind" approach (new function that calls an existing one)**: Creates a new function `h` that explicitly calls the original function `fct` using `call()`.

**Pros and Cons**

* `.bind()`: Advantages:
	+ More concise syntax.
	+ Less boilerplate code required.
	+ May be faster due to optimizations by JavaScript engines (e.g., Firefox's Engine is optimized for `bind()`).
* Disadvantages:
	+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., binding a function to an object that has side effects).
* "Call bind" approach: Advantages:
	+ More explicit and easy to understand.
	+ Allows for more control over the function call context.
	+ May be faster due to reduced overhead of the `bind()` method.
* Disadvantages:
	+ Requires more boilerplate code.

**Library and purpose**

None, this benchmark uses only built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test cases use a special syntax for calling functions: `(args) { ... }`. This is called an "arrow function" and was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Arrow functions are concise and can be used as event handlers, but they may not support all features of traditional functions.

**Other alternatives**

The "call bind" approach could be implemented using other methods, such as:

* Creating a closure: `(function() { return fct; })().call(obj)`
* Using `Function.prototype.call()` or `Function.prototype.apply()`
* Implementing the binding logic manually

However, these alternative approaches may be less efficient and more complex than the "call bind" approach.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark does not consider other factors that might affect performance, such as:

* Function size and complexity
* Object size and structure
* Browser-specific optimizations or limitations

To make the benchmark more comprehensive, additional test cases could be added to explore these factors.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 52 on Windows XP

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	49045456.0 Ops/sec
test2	130305.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

.bind() vs function (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):