Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply vs prebind

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
test.bind(null, "Hello")();
call
test.call(null, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);
prebind
bound();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply
prebind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of instructions that defines how to test different JavaScript function calls. The main difference between these tests is how the `test` function is invoked:

1. **Direct call**: `test("Hello");`
2. **Bind**: `test.bind(null, "Hello")();`
3. **Call**: `test.call(null, "Hello");`
4. **Apply**: `test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);`
5. **Prebind**: `bound();` (where `bound` is the result of `test.bind(null, "Hello")`)

These tests compare the performance of each approach.

**Options compared**

The options being compared are:

* How to invoke a function: direct call, bind, call, apply
* Whether to use the context (this) for the function invocation

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Direct call**: Simple and straightforward, but might incur overhead due to function lookup.
2. **Bind**: Allows for explicit control over the context, which can improve performance in some cases. However, it requires additional setup.
3. **Call**: Similar to bind, but with a more concise syntax.
4. **Apply**: More flexible than call, as it allows for multiple arguments to be passed.

**Library**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are mentioned.

Now, let's discuss some alternatives:

* Other ways to invoke functions, such as using `func` (a function) instead of `test`, might also affect performance.
* Using `new` to create a new object and invoking it like a function could provide similar benefits as apply, but with added overhead due to object creation.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code defines two functions:

1. `test(msg)`: The test function being benchmarked.
2. `bound`: A bound version of the `test` function.

The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no external resources are required for this benchmark.

**Individual test cases**

Each test case measures the performance of a specific approach to invoking the `test` function.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct call	14060577.0 Ops/sec
bind	12871625.0 Ops/sec
call	12870443.0 Ops/sec
apply	12846936.0 Ops/sec
prebind	14171612.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply vs prebind (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind vs call vs apply vs prebind

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

prebind

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):