Benchmark: Arrow fn vs. bind

Script Preparation code:

class TestClass {
  constructor() {
    this.secreatNumber = 0;
  }

  handleJob() {
    return this.secreatNumber++;
  }
}

var testClass = new TestClass();

function caller(fn) {
  return fn();
}

Tests:

Bind
caller(testClass.handleJob.bind(testClass));
Arrow fn
caller(() => testClass.handleJob());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bind
Arrow fn

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.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches for executing functions: Arrow function (`=>`) and `bind()` method from JavaScript's `Function.prototype`. The test compares how fast each approach executes a simple function that increments a variable.

The test case involves a class `TestClass` with a constructor and a method `handleJob()`. This method increments the `secreatNumber` variable. Two different approaches are compared:

1. **Arrow function**: Using an arrow function to call the `handleJob()` method.
2. **bind() method**: Using the `bind()` method to set up the context of the `handleJob()` method before calling it.

**Options comparison**

The two options being compared are:

* Arrow function: `() => testClass.handleJob();`
* `bind()` method: `caller(testClass.handleJob.bind(testClass));`

**Pros and Cons**

### Arrow Function

Pros:

* Concise and readable syntax
* Less boilerplate code required
* Native support in modern JavaScript engines

Cons:

* May have performance issues due to the way it creates a new function object

### bind() Method

Pros:

* Provides explicit control over the context of the function call
* Can be useful when working with legacy code or libraries that rely on this approach

Cons:

* Requires additional setup and creates a new function object
* Less readable syntax for some developers

**Library:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but `caller()` is likely a utility function provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are used beyond what's standard in JavaScript. However, the use of arrow functions and the `bind()` method may not be immediately familiar to all developers, especially those who haven't worked with these concepts before.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to test these approaches, you could consider using other methods for executing functions, such as:

* Closures
* Function constructors (e.g., `new Function(...)` )
* Modern JavaScript features like `setImmediate()` or `requestAnimationFrame()`

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific requirements of your project and the performance characteristics you're trying to optimize.

The benchmark result shows that the Arrow function approach is faster than the `bind()` method approach, which might be due to the overhead of creating a new function object using `bind()`.

Related benchmarks:

Arrow fn vs. bind (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Bind vs Arrow fn

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bind

Arrow fn

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):