Benchmark: Bind vs direct call

Script Preparation code:

function hook1() {
  function test(msg) {
    var d = msg;
  }
  return {
    test,
  }
}

function testRoot(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

function hook2() {
  return {
    test: testRoot.bind(null)
  }
}

Tests:

hook1
hook1().test("hello")
hook2
hook2().test("hello")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hook1
hook2

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests two approaches to calling the `test` function:

1. **Direct Call**: `hook1().test("hello")`
2. **Bound Function Call**: `hook2().test("hello")`

**Option 1: Direct Call (`hook1().test("hello")`)**

In this approach, the `test` function is called directly on the result of `hook1()`. This means that the `hook1()` function returns an object with a `test` property, and then we call `test` on that object.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* No overhead due to binding or lookup

Cons:

* May involve additional function lookups or calls
* May not be optimized by the JavaScript engine

**Option 2: Bound Function Call (`hook2().test("hello")`)**

In this approach, the `test` function is bound to the `null` context using `bind(null)` when creating the result of `hook2()`. This means that when we call `test` on the result of `hook2()`, it will be called with the `null` context.

Pros:

* Can optimize the lookup process by binding the function to a specific context
* May be faster due to optimized function lookups

Cons:

* Requires additional function calls and bindings
* May add overhead due to context switching

**Other Considerations**

* **Context Switching**: In the bound approach, there is an additional context switch when calling `test` on the result of `hook2()`. This can lead to performance differences depending on the JavaScript engine.
* **Function Lookup**: The direct call approach may involve additional function lookups or calls due to the way JavaScript engines optimize function calls.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark, but there is a special feature being tested: the `bind()` method. This method allows you to bind a function to a specific context, which can be useful for optimizing function lookups.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to testing binding vs direct call could include:

* Testing with other JavaScript engines (e.g., Node.js, Edge)
* Adding additional variables or scope to the test functions
* Using different types of bindings (e.g., `bind(this)` instead of `bind(null)`)
* Including more complex function calls or expressions in the benchmark

Note that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases accordingly.

Related benchmarks:

Bind vs direct call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: hook1 vs hook2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hook1

hook2

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):