Benchmark: apply vs call vs bind vs spread vs call+spread vs bind+spread recreate

Tests:

apply
const numbers = [5, 6, 2, 3, 7]; Math.max.apply(null, numbers);
call
Math.max.call(null, 5, 6, 2, 3, 7);
bind
Math.max.bind(null, 5, 6, 2, 3, 7)();
spread
const numbers = [5, 6, 2, 3, 7]; Math.max(...numbers);
call + spread
const numbers = [5, 6, 2, 3, 7]; Math.max.call(null, ...numbers);
bind + spread
const numbers = [5, 6, 2, 3, 7]; Math.max.bind(null, ...numbers)();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
apply
call
bind
spread
call + spread
bind + spread

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 and Purpose**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different methods for invoking the `Math.max()` function in JavaScript:

1. `apply()`
2. `call()`
3. `bind()`
4. Spread operator (`...`)
5. Combination of `call()` and spread operator (`call+spread`)
6. Combination of `bind()` and spread operator (`bind+spread`)

The purpose of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these methods in a real-world scenario.

**Methods Compared**

1. **apply()**: The `apply()` method invokes a function with a given this value (null in this case) and an array of arguments.
2. **call()**: The `call()` method invokes a function with a given this value (null in this case) and an array of arguments.
3. **bind()**: The `bind()` method creates a new function that has its `this` keyword set to the provided value (null in this case).
4. **Spread operator (`...`)**: The spread operator is used to expand an array or other iterable into individual elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **apply()**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward way to invoke a function with arguments.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other methods due to the overhead of checking the this value and argument count.
2. **call()**:
	* Pros: Similar to `apply()`, but with fewer overhead checks.
	* Cons: May require more manual handling for error cases.
3. **bind()**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than `apply()` or `call()` due to the caching of the bound function.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new function, which can lead to additional memory allocation.
4. **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros: Elegant and concise way to expand arrays into individual elements.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to the overhead of creating an array from an iterable.

**Library Usage**
None of the methods mentioned above rely on a specific library, except for the `Math.max()` function itself. The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (none)**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **Arrow functions**: While not directly comparable to the above methods, arrow functions (`() => { ... }`) can be an alternative way to invoke a function with no `this` value.
2. **Generator functions**: Generator functions (using `function* {...}`) are another alternative, but they are not being tested in this benchmark.

Overall, this benchmark provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript methods for invoking functions, which can help developers optimize their code for better performance and efficiency.

Related benchmarks:

apply vs call vs bind vs spread vs call+spread vs bind+spread recreate (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: apply vs call vs bind vs spread vs call + spread vs bind + spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

apply

call

bind

spread

call + spread

bind + spread

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):