Benchmark: Explicit call vs regular call

Script Preparation code:

let count = 0;
let scope = {};

function regular(){
  count++
}


for(i=0; i<10; i++){}

Tests:

call function
regular()
call function with call
regular.call()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call function
call function with call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/101.0.4951.64 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
call function	25689436.0 Ops/sec
call function with call	22917458.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between making an explicit call to a function and using the `call` method to invoke a function with its `this` context.

**Script Preparation Code**
```javascript
let count = 0;
let scope = {};

function regular() {
  count++;
}
```
This script defines two variables: `count` initialized to 0, and `scope`, an empty object. It also defines a function named `regular`. The purpose of this code is to increment the `count` variable when the `regular` function is called.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided for this benchmark, which means that the script will be executed in isolation without any external dependencies or side effects.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **call function**: This test case calls the `regular` function directly.
2. **call function with call**: This test case uses the `call` method to invoke the `regular` function with its own `this` context.

**Performance Comparison**

When comparing these two approaches, we need to consider the following factors:

* **Function invocation overhead**: The `call` method adds an additional layer of indirection, which may introduce performance overhead. Direct function calls are typically faster and more efficient.
* **Context switching**: When using `call`, the engine needs to switch contexts to access the `this` value, which can lead to additional overhead compared to direct function calls.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Explicit call** (Direct function calls):
	+ Pros: Faster, more efficient, and typically has less overhead.
	+ Cons: May be less readable or maintainable for complex codebases.
* **call method**:
	+ Pros: Provides flexibility in calling functions with specific contexts, can be useful in certain edge cases.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra layer of indirection, may introduce performance overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When writing JavaScript code, it's essential to consider the trade-offs between readability, maintainability, and performance. In general, direct function calls are preferred for simple cases, while the `call` method might be necessary in more complex scenarios where context switching is required.

If you need to test or analyze specific JavaScript features or syntax, MeasureThat.net provides a great platform to do so. You can create your own benchmarks by defining different script and HTML preparation codes, and then run them through the MeasureThat.net engine.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

MeasureThat.net offers various benchmark templates that allow you to compare the performance of different JavaScript constructs, such as:

* Object creation vs. Array creation
* Loop iterations (e.g., `for` loops, `while` loops)
* Function calls with and without caching
* Async/await vs. callback-based code

By creating and running your own benchmarks, you can gain insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript techniques and optimize your code for better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Explicit call vs regular call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call function vs call function with call

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call function

call function with call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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