Benchmark: direct vs bind vs apply vs call

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
bind
call
apply

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provided is for comparing different ways to invoke a function in JavaScript: `test("Hello");`, `test.bind(null, "Hello")();`, `test.call(null, "Hello")();`, and `test.apply(null, ["Hello"])`. The script preparation code `function test(msg) { var d = msg; }` creates a simple function that takes a string argument `msg` and assigns it to a variable `d`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different ways to invoke the `test` function:

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

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **Direct Invocation**: This is the most straightforward way to call a function in JavaScript. It's simple to read and understand, but it may be slower due to the overhead of creating a new context.
    *   Pros: Simple, easy to read
    *   Cons: May be slower
*   **Bind**: The `bind` method creates a new bound function that can be invoked later with different arguments. It's useful when you want to call a function with a specific context or scope. However, it may also incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new bound function.
    *   Pros: Useful for creating functions with specific contexts
    *   Cons: May incur additional overhead due to bound function creation
*   **Call**: The `call` method calls a function with a specified context (this object) and arguments. It's similar to bind, but it doesn't create a new bound function.
    *   Pros: Similar to bind without the overhead of bound function creation
    *   Cons: May still incur some overhead due to the call method invocation
*   **Apply**: The `apply` method calls a function with a specified context (this object) and arguments, similar to `call`. However, it allows you to pass multiple arguments in an array.
    *   Pros: Allows passing multiple arguments in an array
    *   Cons: May still incur some overhead due to the apply method invocation

**Library Usage**

There doesn't seem to be any library usage in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax like ES6 classes, async/await, or promises. However, if we were to extend this benchmark to include these features, it would provide valuable insights into their performance characteristics.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare additional invocation methods, such as:

*   **New Function Expression**: `new test();`
*   **Arrow Functions**: `() => test("Hello");`
*   **Generator Functions**: `function* test(msg) { yield msg; }`

You could easily add these alternatives to the benchmark definition.

Keep in mind that the choice of invocation method often depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. By running benchmarks like this one, you can gain insights into the performance characteristics of different invocation methods and make informed decisions about which approach to use for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

direct vs bind vs apply vs call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct vs bind vs call vs apply

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct

bind

call

apply

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):