Benchmark: .bind() vs function

Script Preparation code:

var fct = function() {};
var obj = {};

Tests:

bind
var g = fct.bind(obj);
function
var g = function() { return fct.call(obj); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/144.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	139553424.0 Ops/sec
function	159371408.0 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 benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using `bind()` and using a function expression with `call()`.

**What is being tested?**

* Two specific JavaScript functions: `fct` (a simple anonymous function) and `obj` (an empty object).
* The behavior of these functions when bound to an object (`obj`) using `bind()` or through the `call()` method.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Using `.bind()`**: Binding the `fct` function to the `obj` object using the `bind()` method.
2. **Using a function expression with `.call()`**: Creating a new function that calls `fct.call(obj)` to achieve the same binding effect as `bind()`.
3. **Implicit binding**: Not explicitly bound, where `fct` is called on `obj` directly.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `.bind()`:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward way to bind a function to an object.
	+ Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly (e.g., when binding multiple functions).
* Using a function expression with `.call()`:
	+ Pros: More flexible and controlled approach to binding, allowing for more complex use cases.
	+ Cons: Requires additional code and can be less readable than using `bind()`.
* Implicit binding:
	+ Pros: Does not require explicit code changes or library usage.
	+ Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if the function is called on a different object.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, but note that modern JavaScript implementations often provide features like `bind()` and `call()` for convenience.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both `bind()` and the function expression with `.call()` use standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other alternatives**

* Another approach to achieve similar binding effects is using arrow functions (`=>`), which automatically bind to the nearest object when called.
* Some libraries, like Lodash, provide alternative methods for binding, such as `_bind()` or `partial()`, which can offer additional features and optimizations.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between three approaches: using `.bind()` (simple and straightforward), a function expression with `.call()` (more flexible but requires more code), and implicit binding (less readable and potentially less performant).

Related benchmarks:

.bind() vs function (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: bind vs function

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

bind

function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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