Benchmark: bind vs call - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a = true;

class Foo {
bar() {
	a = !a;  
}
}

var qux = new Foo();

var func = qux.bar;

var biz = func.bind(qux);

Tests:

bind
biz();
call
func.call(qux);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The script preparation code defines a class `Foo` with a method `bar()`. The method toggles a variable `a`, which is initially set to `true`. After that, an instance `qux` of the `Foo` class is created and assigned to a variable. Then, a reference to the `bar()` method on the `qux` object is stored in a variable `func`.

The script then binds the `func` variable to the `qux` object using the `bind()` method, creating a new function `biz`. The purpose of this binding is to ensure that when `biz` is called, it has access to the `qux` object's context.

**Options Compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **bind()**: This option uses the `bind()` method to bind the `func` variable to the `qux` object. When `biz` is called, it will have its own scope and can access the `qux` object's properties.
2. **call()**: This option uses the `call()` method to call the `func` function on the `qux` object directly. When executed, it will set the value of `a` to `!true` (which is equivalent to `false`) and then do nothing else.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **bind()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Allows the bound function to access its own scope and the context of the object being bound to.
		- Can be useful when you want to ensure that a function has access to certain variables or methods, even if they are not present in its own scope.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to unexpected behavior if the bound function is not used correctly (e.g., losing the original context).
* **call()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster than `bind()` because it avoids creating a new scope and binding.
		- Less memory usage since no additional context is created.
	+ Cons:
		- The bound function loses its own scope and cannot access variables or methods from the original object's context.

**Library/Functionality:**

* **bind()**: This method is part of the JavaScript `Function` prototype. It creates a new function that has its `this` keyword set to a specified value, allowing it to operate within a specific context.
* **call()**: This method is also part of the JavaScript `Function` prototype. It calls a specified function with a given context (or `this`).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you don't want to use `bind()` or `call()`, there are alternative approaches:

* Use an arrow function (`=>`) instead of the `bind()` method. Arrow functions automatically inherit their scope from the surrounding context.
* Define a new function using the `new` keyword, which would provide similar behavior to calling the bound function directly.
* Use a closure or use a library like Lodash's `partial()` function to achieve the same result as binding.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and might not be suitable for all scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs call

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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