Benchmark: Bind vs arrow function instantiation performance

Script Preparation code:

var ctx = {
  u: 123,
  x: 456,
  w(u) {
    return u + this.x;
  }
};

Tests:

Bind
requestAnimationFrame(ctx.w.bind(ctx, ctx.u));
Arrow
requestAnimationFrame(() => { ctx.w(ctx.u); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bind
Arrow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bind	1965346.4 Ops/sec
Arrow	2751797.5 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Function Bind**: Creating functions using `function.bind()`.
2. **Arrow Function**: Wrapping a function in an arrow function (`=>`).

Both approaches are used to create a closure, which is a function that has access to its own scope and can capture variables from that scope.

**Benchmarked Scenario:**

The benchmark tests the creation of closures for a specific scenario:

* A context object `ctx` with two properties: `u` and `x`.
* A method `w` on `ctx`, which takes `u` as an argument and returns `u + x`.

The benchmark measures the performance of creating a closure by binding the `w` method to the `ctx` object using either `function.bind()` or wrapping it in an arrow function.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Function Bind**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more readable, as the intention of creating a closure is explicit.
		+ May perform better due to the optimizer's ability to inline bound functions.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more boilerplate code, depending on the number of closures needed.
2. **Arrow Function**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable, as the syntax for creating a closure is implicit.
		+ Often faster, since the arrow function can be inlined by the optimizer.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less explicit about the intention of creating a closure.

**Other Considerations:**

* Both approaches can capture variables from the surrounding scope using `this` or closures. In this benchmark, `ctx.u` is used to capture the value of `u`.
* The benchmark uses `requestAnimationFrame()` to generate performance metrics, which may introduce some overhead.
* Modern JavaScript engines have various optimizations for arrow functions and closures, so the actual performance difference between these approaches might be negligible in modern browsers.

**Library Used:**

There isn't a specific library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `requestAnimationFrame()` is a part of the Web API, which is maintained by W3C (World Wide Web Consortium).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

The benchmark uses JavaScript features that are widely supported:

* Function expressions and closures
* Arrow functions (`=>`)
* Method invocation on objects (`ctx.w`)

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **Using `const` instead of `var`**: In some cases, using `const` to declare variables can improve performance by preventing hoisting.
2. **Using `let` and `const` with blocks**: Using `let` and `const` with block statements (e.g., `if`/`else`) can help avoid scoping issues and improve readability.
3. **Optimizing closures**: Techniques like memoization, caching, or optimizing loop performance can have a significant impact on application performance.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs arrow function instantiation performance (version: 0)

is it faster to create functions using function.bind or to wrap them in an arrow function. tested for requestAnimationFrame generation

Comparing performance of: Bind vs Arrow

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bind

Arrow

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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