Benchmark: Arrow VS Bind - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function b() {
  console.log("b");
}

Tests:

Arrow
(() => { console.log("a"); })()
Bind
b.bind(this)()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow
Bind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 56 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow	11414.1 Ops/sec
Bind	11127.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark between two approaches: Arrow functions and Bind method.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code is identical for both test cases:
```javascript
function b() {
  console.log("b");
}
```
This code defines a simple function `b` that logs the string "b" to the console. The purpose of this code is to create a basic scenario that allows us to compare the performance of different approaches.

**Html Preparation Code**
The html preparation code is empty (`null`) for both test cases, which means no HTML context is being used in these benchmarks.

**Test Cases**
There are two individual test cases:

1. **Arrow**: The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
(() => { console.log("a"); })()
```
This code defines an anonymous function using an arrow function syntax. When executed immediately (`()()`), it logs the string "a" to the console.

2. **Bind**: The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
b.bind(this)()
```
This code binds the `this` context of the function `b` to its own scope and then calls the bound function immediately, logging the string "b" to the console.

**Performance Comparison**
The test cases are compared in terms of their execution speed. The benchmark results show that:

* The **Arrow** approach executed 11414.1103515625 executions per second on a Firefox 56 browser.
* The **Bind** approach executed 11127.6015625 executions per second on the same browser.

From these results, we can infer that the Arrow function syntax is slightly faster than the Bind method approach in this specific scenario.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrow functions**: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive
	+ Implicit `this` context
	+ No need for explicit binding or using `bind()`
* Cons:
	+ May not be as familiar to older developers who are used to traditional function syntax
* Bind method approach:
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more flexibility in setting the `this` context
		- Can be useful when working with legacy code that relies on explicit binding
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and less expressive than arrow functions
		- Requires explicit binding using `bind()` or other methods

**Alternative Approaches**
Other approaches to achieve similar performance could include:

* Using a lambda function (e.g., `() => { console.log("a"); }`) instead of an arrow function.
* Using the `call()` method or `apply()` method to set the `this` context explicitly, like this: `b.call(this)()`.

However, it's worth noting that these alternatives may not be as concise or expressive as arrow functions, and may require more boilerplate code.

Related benchmarks:

Arrow VS Bind (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow vs Bind

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Arrow

Bind

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):