Benchmark: bind-2018-test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var Me = function() {

};

Me.prototype = {
   callMe: function $callMe() {
      return "maybe";
   }
};

function fcd(instance, method) {
 return function ()
            {
                return method.apply(instance, arguments);
            };

}

Tests:

bind
var m = new Me(); var fn = m.callMe.bind(this);
fcd
var m = new Me(); var fn = fcd(m, m.callMe);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
fcd

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.

Measuring JavaScript performance! Let's dive into the provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance of two approaches to bind a method to an object: using the `bind()` method (directly) versus using a function created with the `fcd` function (a helper function that creates a bound method).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Direct Binding**: Using `var fn = m.callMe.bind(this);`. This approach uses the built-in `bind()` method, which sets the value of `this` within the function to the provided argument.
2. **fcd Function**: Using `var fn = fcd(m, m.callMe);`. This approach uses a helper function `fcd` that creates a new bound method by applying the provided method to the instance with the `apply()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* Direct Binding (`bind()`) has a few advantages:
	+ Shorter code (less boilerplate)
	+ Faster execution, as it's a built-in method
	+ Works well for simple cases
* fcd Function has some pros:
	+ More flexible, as you can use it to create bound methods with different `this` values
	+ Can be useful when you need more control over the binding process
However, the main con is that:
	+ Longer code (more boilerplate)
	+ Slower execution, due to the additional function creation

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the specific use case and performance requirements. If simplicity and fast execution are crucial, direct binding (`bind()`) might be a better choice. However, if flexibility and more control over the binding process are necessary, the fcd Function could be a better option.

**Library Used: None**

No libraries are used in this benchmark, making it a simple and straightforward test of built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only employs standard JavaScript methods (e.g., `bind()`, `apply()`) and basic object-oriented programming concepts (e.g., method binding, function creation).

Now that we've explored the benchmark details, let's talk about other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance:

* Other benchmarking tools: There are many other JavaScript benchmarking tools available, such as BenchmarkJS, jsPerf, or even simple Node.js modules like `benchmark`.
* Custom Benchmarks: You can create your own custom benchmarks using a framework like Webpack's `bench` API or a library like `benchmark-js`.

These alternatives might offer more features, flexibility, and control over the benchmarking process. However, they also require more setup and configuration.

Do you have any specific questions about this benchmark or JavaScript performance measurement in general?

Related benchmarks:

bind-2018-test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs fcd

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

fcd

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):