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

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: 15 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.bind	263725376.0 Ops/sec
=>	260732400.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark measures two approaches to bind methods in JavaScript: using the `.bind()` method and arrow functions (denoted by `=>`).

**Approaches Compared**

1. **`.bind()` method**: This approach uses the `bind()` method to create a new function that has its context set to the original object.
2. **Arrow Functions (`=>`)**: This approach uses a shorthand syntax for creating functions, which automatically sets the context of the function to the surrounding scope.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`.bind()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for explicit control over the context of the bound function.
		+ Can be used with any function, not just methods.
	* Cons:
		+ Returns a new function object, which can lead to increased memory usage.
		+ Can be less readable than arrow functions.
2. **Arrow Functions (`=>`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable syntax.
		+ Automatically sets the context of the function to the surrounding scope.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility, as it only works with functions defined using this syntax.
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases where explicit control over context is required.

**Library Used**

There is no library used in these benchmark definitions. The test cases are self-contained JavaScript code that demonstrates the two approaches to binding methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature of modern JavaScript syntax: arrow functions (`=>`). This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a concise way to define small, single-purpose functions. The test cases use this syntax to compare the performance of `.bind()` versus arrow functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `.bind()` and arrow functions, consider the trade-offs between readability, flexibility, and memory usage. If you need explicit control over the context of a function or want to use it with non-methods, `.bind()` might be a better choice. However, if you're writing small, self-contained functions and prioritize conciseness and readability, arrow functions (`=>`) are likely a better option.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for binding methods include:

1. **Function constructors**: `function boundMethod() { ... }`
2. **Immediately invoked function expressions (IIFE)**: `(function() { return this.testMethod(); }).bind(this)`
3. **Using `call()` or `apply()`**: `this.testMethod.call(this)` or `this.testMethod.apply(this)`

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and readability compared to the `.bind()` method and arrow functions.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .bind vs =>

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump 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):