Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (with specified object)

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {
  prop: '',
  f: function() {}
};
function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
test.bind(window.obj, "Hello")();
call
test.call(window.obj, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(window.obj, ["Hello"]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

direct call

495.1M/s

apply

471.9M/s

call

460.0M/s

bind

58.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ direct call	495,122,784 Ops/sec
apply	471,938,208 Ops/sec
call	460,036,736 Ops/sec
bind	58,757,496 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a single script that creates an object `window.obj` with two properties: `prop` and `f`. The script then defines a function `test(msg)` that takes a message `msg`.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases, each defining a different way to call the `test` function:

1. **Direct Call**: `test("Hello");`
2. **Bind**: `test.bind(window.obj, "Hello")();`
3. **Call**: `test.call(window.obj, "Hello");`
4. **Apply**: `test.apply(window.obj, ["Hello"]);`

These test cases are designed to compare the performance of each method.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Direct Call (`test("Hello")`)
* Bind (`test.bind(window.obj, "Hello")()`)
* Call (`test.call(window.obj, "Hello")`)
* Apply (`test.apply(window.obj, ["Hello"])`)

These methods differ in how they bind the `window.obj` object to the `test` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each method:

1. **Direct Call**: Simplest approach, but may incur overhead due to string concatenation.
	* Pros: Easy to implement, no additional overhead.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods.
2. **Bind**: Creates a new bound function that wraps the original `test` function with the provided object as its first argument.
	* Pros: Can provide more control over the binding process, may be faster than direct call due to reduced string concatenation overhead.
	* Cons: Requires an extra step to create the bound function.
3. **Call**: Calls the `test` function directly on the provided object, passing the message as an argument.
	* Pros: Similar to bind but with less overhead, as it avoids creating a new function.
	* Cons: May be slower than direct call due to additional argument passing.
4. **Apply**: Applies the `test` function to the provided object and arguments using the `apply()` method.
	* Pros: Can provide more control over the binding process, may be faster than direct call or bind due to reduced overhead.
	* Cons: Requires an extra step to create a new array of arguments.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is likely designed to test the performance differences between these methods on different browsers and devices. The use of `window.obj` as a binding object suggests that the benchmark wants to isolate the performance differences due to function call semantics, rather than other factors like memory allocation or garbage collection.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases, such as:

* Using an array of arguments instead of `apply()`
* Using a different binding object or syntax
* Adding additional functions to the `test` function to increase complexity

However, keep in mind that adding too many test cases may lead to increased overhead and decreased accuracy.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (with specified object) (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (with specified object) (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

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