Benchmark: Bind vs Direct - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function direct(){}
var bound = direct.bind(null)

Tests:

Direct
direct()
Bind
bound();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct
Bind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_3_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12.1.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 12 on iOS 12.3.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct	3603681.5 Ops/sec
Bind	3550935.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: `direct()` and `bound()`. The `direct()` function is called directly, while `bound()` is the result of calling `bind(null)` on the `direct` function. This is a classic example of a microbenchmark testing the performance difference between two methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Direct**: Calling the function directly using its name as a string (`direct()`)
2. **Bound**: Using the `bind()` method to create a new function that references the original `direct` function, but with a different context (in this case, `null`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward call to the function.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to string lookup and function invocation.
* **Bound**:
	+ Pros: Can provide better performance by avoiding unnecessary function lookups and calls.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional step (binding) that may introduce overhead.

The choice between these two approaches depends on the specific use case. If performance is critical, using `bound()` might be a good option. However, if simplicity and ease of use are more important, `direct()` might be sufficient.

**Library**

The test case uses the `bind()` method from the JavaScript standard library. The `bind()` function returns a new function that, when called, executes the original function with its `this` keyword set to the provided value (in this case, `null`). This is used to create a context for the `direct` function, allowing it to be called without needing to pass the context explicitly.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two simple function calls.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you were to modify this benchmark to test other approaches, some possible alternatives could be:

* Using an array of functions and executing them sequentially
* Using a loop to call the `direct()` or `bound()` functions multiple times
* Adding additional overhead to the `bound()` approach (e.g., by creating a closure around the bound function)
* Testing with different contexts for the `bind()` method (e.g., instead of `null`, using an object as the context)

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches would require modifications to the benchmark code and might not accurately represent real-world scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs Direct (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct vs Bind

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Direct

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):