Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply without alloc

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

var message = "Hello";

var messageArray = [message];

Tests:

direct call
test(message);
bind
test.bind(null, message)();
call
test.call(null, message);
apply
test.apply(null, messageArray);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
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 break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of different approaches to call a function with an argument: direct call, bind, call, and apply without allocating memory on the heap.

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by a "Benchmark Definition" property that contains a JavaScript expression. The expressions are:

1. `test(message);` - Direct call
2. `test.bind(null, message)();` - Bind
3. `test.call(null, message);` - Call
4. `test.apply(null, messageArray);` - Apply

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. They only rely on built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

Now, let's analyze each approach:

1. **Direct Call**: This is the most common way to call a function with an argument. The function `test` is called directly with the `message` variable as an argument.
2. **Bind**: The `bind` method creates a new function that has its `this` keyword set to the provided value (in this case, `null`) and calls the original function with the provided arguments. In this test case, `test.bind(null, message)` creates a new function that will call `test(message)`.
3. **Call**: The `call` method creates a new function that has its `this` keyword set to the provided value (in this case, `null`) and calls the original function with the provided arguments. In this test case, `test.call(null, message)` creates a new function that will call `test(message)`.
4. **Apply**: The `apply` method creates a new function that has its `this` keyword set to the provided value (in this case, `null`) and calls the original function with the provided arguments in the order specified by the apply() call. In this test case, `test.apply(null, messageArray)` creates a new function that will call `test(messageArray[0])`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct Call**: This is the most straightforward approach, but it may involve more overhead due to the need to create a temporary object with the argument.
* **Bind**, **Call**: These approaches create a new function that wraps the original function, which can be more efficient since the original function is only called once. However, they require creating an additional function object, which can add some overhead.
* **Apply**: This approach uses the `apply()` method, which can be slower than the other two because it requires checking the length of the arguments array.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could have been used to test the performance of these functions:

* Using a different function constructor (e.g., `new` instead of `bind`, `call`, or `apply`)
* Passing the argument as a separate parameter instead of using an array
* Using a more efficient data structure for storing and accessing the arguments
* Measuring the performance of different browsers or environments

These alternatives could provide additional insights into how these functions perform in different scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply without alloc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind vs call vs apply

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

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):