Benchmark: bind vs call vs apply

Script Preparation code:

function fn(a, b) {
	return a + b;
}

Tests:

call
fn.call(this, 1, 2);
apply
fn.apply(this, [1, 2])
bind
fn.bind(this)(1, 2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call
apply
bind

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different ways to invoke a function in JavaScript: `call`, `apply`, and `bind`. The functions being tested are the same, with only the invocation method changing. This allows users to compare the efficiency of these methods.

**Options Compared**

1. **`fn.call(this, 1, 2)`**: Uses the `call()` method to invoke the function, passing `this` (the context) and two arguments (`1` and `2`). This is a straightforward way to call a function with a specific context.
2. **`fn.apply(this, [1, 2])`**: Uses the `apply()` method to invoke the function, passing `this` (the context) and an array containing the arguments (`[1, 2]`). This is similar to `call()`, but uses an array instead of individual arguments.
3. **`fn.bind(this)(1, 2)`**: Uses the `bind()` method to create a new bound function, which can then be invoked with two arguments (`1` and `2`). The context (`this`) is set before the function is created.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`call()` and `apply()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be as convenient as other methods (e.g., `bind()`), can lead to confusion if not used carefully.
2. **`bind()`**:
	* Pros: More readable and maintainable than raw `call()` or `apply()`, allows for more flexibility in function creation.
	* Cons: Creates a new bound function, which may incur additional overhead.

**Library and Syntax**

None of the test cases use any libraries or special JavaScript features that require explanation. The benchmark focuses solely on the performance comparison of three invocation methods.

**Device Platform and Browser**

The test results indicate that Firefox 56 on Mac OS X 10.11 is being used as the reference platform for this benchmark. Other devices and browsers may not produce similar results, but are still worth testing to ensure compatibility.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore other invocation methods or alternatives, consider the following:

1. **`new`**: Creating a new object with `new` can also be used to invoke functions.
2. **Arrow functions**: Arrow functions (`() => {}`) use `this` by default and do not require explicit invocation.
3. **Generator functions**: Generator functions (e.g., `function* fn()`) have their own invocation methods, such as `fn.next()` or `fn.call()`.
4. **Async/await**: The async/await syntax uses promises to handle asynchronous operations, which may involve function invocation.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives might be significant, and may not be worth using for simple use cases.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs call vs apply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call vs apply vs bind

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call

apply

bind

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):