Benchmark: es5 bind vs es6 arrow

Script Preparation code:

class A {
  execute() {
    
  }
  
  callback1() {}
  
  callback2() {}
}

window.a = new A();

Tests:

bind
a.execute = function () { let bound1 = this.callback1.bind(this); let bound2 = this.callback2.bind(this); bound1(); bound2(); } a.execute();
arrow
a.execute = function () { let bound1 = () => this.callback1(); let bound2 = () => this.callback2(); bound1(); bound2(); } a.execute();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
arrow

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 benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to bind methods in JavaScript:

1. **ES5 bind**: The `bind` method is used to create a new function that has its `this` keyword bound to a specified value.
2. **ES6 arrow functions**: The `=>` syntax is used to define arrow functions, which also have their `this` keyword bound to the context in which they are defined.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

* Using the `bind` method (ES5) to create a new function that binds its `this` keyword to the specified value.
* Using arrow functions (ES6) to define methods that have their `this` keyword bound to the context in which they are defined.

**Pros and Cons**

### ES5 bind

Pros:

* Wide support across different browsers and versions
* Easy to understand and implement
* Can be used to create complex function compositions

Cons:

* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly (e.g., binding `this` incorrectly)
* May introduce performance overhead due to the creation of a new function object

### ES6 arrow functions

Pros:

* Simplifies method definitions and reduces boilerplate code
* Expresses intent more clearly, making code easier to understand
* Can lead to better performance due to reduced overhead from creating new function objects

Cons:

* Limited support across older browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer 11)
* May not be as intuitive for developers who are not familiar with arrow functions

**Library and syntax considerations**

The benchmark uses the `callback1` and `callback2` methods, which are likely defined within the provided class definition. The purpose of these methods is to demonstrate how the binding approaches affect their execution.

In this case, there are no notable library or syntax considerations, as both examples rely on standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. Both examples only use the `bind` method and arrow functions, which are widely supported features in modern JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to binding methods, here are a few options:

* **Using a wrapper function**: Instead of using the `bind` method or arrow functions, you can create a wrapper function that takes the context as an argument and calls the original method with the correct `this` value.
* **Using closures**: You can use closures to encapsulate the method's implementation and ensure that the correct `this` value is used within the closure.
* **Using a library or framework**: Some libraries, such as React or Angular, provide built-in support for binding methods through their APIs.

In general, when choosing between these approaches, consider factors like performance, code readability, and compatibility across different browsers and versions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	4145108.2 Ops/sec
arrow	4239809.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

es5 bind vs es6 arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs arrow

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

arrow

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):