Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply foosssdsad aasa

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  var d = msg;
}

var arrow = () => {test("Hello")}
var binded = test.bind(null, "Hello")

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
test.bind(null, "Hello")();
call
test.call(null, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);
arrow
arrow();
binded
binded()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply
arrow
binded

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 benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of different methods for calling a function: `direct call`, `bind`, `call`, `apply`, `arrow` (also known as an arrow function), and `binded` (which is likely a typo and should be "bound"). The tests are designed to measure how many times each method can execute in one second.

**Test Cases**

Here's what each test case measures:

1. **Direct call**: Measures the performance of calling `test("Hello")` directly.
2. **Bind**: Measures the performance of binding the `test` function to a specific value using `test.bind(null, "Hello")`.
3. **Call**: Measures the performance of calling `test.call(null, "Hello")`.
4. **Apply**: Measures the performance of applying the `test` function to an array with `"Hello"` as its argument using `test.apply(null, ["Hello"])`.
5. **Arrow**: Measures the performance of calling an arrow function (`() => test("Hello")`) directly.
6. **Binded** (likely a typo for "Bound"): Measures the performance of calling the bound version of the `test` function (`test.bind(null, "Hello")()`).

**Library and Syntax Used**

The tests use a JavaScript function named `test`, which is not defined in the benchmark code. However, based on its usage, it appears to be a simple function that takes a message as an argument.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, such as async/await, promises, or generators.

**Performance Comparison**

The results show that:

* The `direct call` method performs the best, with approximately 18.5 executions per second.
* The `apply` method is close behind, with around 9.6 executions per second.
* The other methods (`bind`, `call`, `arrow`, and `binded`) perform significantly worse, with execution rates below 10 seconds.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Direct call**: Pros - no overhead due to binding or function calls. Cons - may require more function arguments.
2. **Apply**: Pros - can pass multiple arguments to the function. Cons - creates a new object and may incur additional memory allocation.
3. **Bind**: Pros - allows for flexible argument passing without creating a new object. Cons - adds overhead due to binding.
4. **Call**: Similar to `apply`, but uses the `this` keyword instead of an object.

**Alternatives**

If you need to optimize function calls in JavaScript, consider the following alternatives:

1. Use a caching mechanism to store recently called functions and reuse them to reduce overhead.
2. Utilize native web APIs like WebAssembly or worker threads to offload computationally expensive tasks.
3. Leverage modern JavaScript features like async/await and promises to write more efficient and readable code.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply foosssdsad aasa (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind vs call vs apply vs arrow vs binded

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

arrow

binded

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):