Benchmark: Bind vs arrow - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

class TestClass {
  testMethod() {}  
  
  doBind() {
    return this.testMethod.bind(this); 
  }
  
  doArrow() {
    return (...args) => this.testMethod(...args); 
  }
}

var inst = new TestClass();

Tests:

.bind
var method = inst.doBind();
=>
var method = inst.doArrow();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.bind
=>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

229.8M/s

.bind

208.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ =>	229,755,328 Ops/sec
.bind	208,262,176 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Description**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to create a bound function in JavaScript: using the `bind()` method and arrow functions (`=>`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a class `TestClass` with a test method `testMethod()`. This class is used as a test subject to compare the performance of different approaches.

```javascript
class TestClass {
  testMethod() {}
  
  doBind() {
    return this.testMethod.bind(this);
  }
  
  doArrow() {
    return (...args) => this.testMethod(...args);
  }
}
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only runs in a Node.js environment.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `doBind()`: This test case measures the performance of using the `bind()` method to create a bound function.
2. `=> doArrow()`: This test case measures the performance of using an arrow function (`=>`) to create a bound function.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript, which is a popular programming language known for its dynamic nature and extensive use of libraries and frameworks.

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches to create bound functions.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

1. **`bind()` method**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and well-documented.
	* Cons: Can be slower than arrow functions due to the need for additional function checks (e.g., `typeof this === 'object' && this !== null`).
2. **Arrow functions (`=>`)**:
	* Pros: More efficient, concise, and modern syntax.
	* Cons: May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that don't support arrow functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches to create bound functions, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Function.prototype.call()**: Instead of using `bind()`, you can use `call()` to bind a function to an object.
2. **Function.prototype.apply()**: Similar to `call()`, but allows for multiple arguments and is more versatile.
3. **Currying**: You can create a bound function by currying another function, which involves creating a new function with a single argument.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or require additional setup.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its comparisons!

Bind vs arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `.bind vs =>`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.bind

=>

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Bind vs arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .bind vs =>

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.bind

=>

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `.bind vs =>`