Benchmark: bind vs closure - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

bind
function fn1() { return 1 + 1; } function fn2() { return 2 + 2; } function fn3() { return 3 + 3; } function fn4() { return 4 + 4; } function createSomething() { return [fn1.bind(), fn2.bind(), fn3.bind(), fn4.bind()] } for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething(); for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) { a(); b(); c(); d(); } }
closure
function createSomething() { function fn1() { return 1 + 1; } function fn2() { return 2 + 2; } function fn3() { return 3 + 3; } function fn4() { return 4 + 4; } return [fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4] } for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { let [a, b, c, d] = createSomething(); for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) { a(); b(); c(); d(); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bind
closure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	5386.7 Ops/sec
closure	448259.8 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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to function binding in JavaScript: `bind` and closure.

**What is being tested?**

In both test cases, four functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, `fn3`, and `fn4`) are defined. Each function returns a simple arithmetic expression (e.g., `return 1 + 1;`). The benchmark creates an array of four bound versions of these functions using the `bind` method.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Bind**: Using the `bind` method to create bound versions of the functions.
2. **Closure**: Not using the `bind` method, instead returning the original functions directly.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Bind**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a clear and explicit way to bind functions to specific contexts.
		- Can improve performance by reducing the number of function lookups required.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than closures, since it creates an additional object that needs to be stored on the heap.
* **Closure**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster and more memory-efficient than bind, since it doesn't create an additional object.
	+ Cons:
		- May not provide a clear and explicit way to understand the context in which a function is being executed.

**Other considerations**

In both test cases, the functions are called 100 times each from multiple iterations of a loop. This creates a high amount of function call overhead, which can affect the benchmark results.

**Library used (if any)**

None, as this benchmark does not use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

The `bind` method is a built-in JavaScript method that was introduced in ECMAScript 5. It allows you to bind a function to a specific context, making it easier to call the function with specific arguments.

In contrast, the closure approach used in the benchmark does not use any special features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript functions and loops.

**Benchmark results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* The `closure` test has a higher executions per second value (3352.257568359375) compared to the `bind` test (261804.3125).
* This suggests that, in this specific benchmark, the closure approach may be faster than the bind approach.

However, it's essential to note that this result may not generalize to all scenarios and use cases, as the performance difference between these two approaches can vary depending on the specific requirements of your code.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs closure (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bind vs closure

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bind

closure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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