Benchmark: bind vs closure v2

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(null), fn2.bind(null), fn3.bind(null), fn4.bind(null)] } 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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	3340.2 Ops/sec
closure	263489.5 Ops/sec

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 options.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: binding functions with `null` (`bind`) and creating closures over functions (`closure`). The test creates an array of four bound functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, `fn3`, and `fn4`) in both cases and executes each function 100 times.

**Options being compared**

There are two main options:

1. **Binding with `null` (`bind`)**:
	* In this approach, the `bind()` method is used to create a new bound function that calls the original function with `null` as its context.
	* The purpose of binding in this test is to ensure that each function has a fixed context (in this case, `null`) and does not "remember" any external state or variables from their surrounding scope.
2. **Creating closures over functions (`closure`)**:
	* In this approach, the original functions are returned as-is without being bound to a specific context using `bind()`.
	* The purpose of creating closures in this test is to see how the functions behave when executed with different contexts (i.e., the current execution scope).

**Pros and Cons**

**Binding with `null` (`bind`)**:

Pros:

* Provides a fixed context for each function, which can help prevent issues related to "this" or external state leakage.
* Can be useful in certain scenarios where a specific context is required.

Cons:

* Creates a new bound function object every time `bind()` is called, which can incur overhead due to the creation of additional objects and potential garbage collection.
* May not accurately represent real-world usage, as functions are often used with varying contexts (e.g., event handlers, callback functions).

**Creating closures over functions (`closure`)**:

Pros:

* More closely represents how functions are typically used in JavaScript, where context is often determined by the surrounding scope.
* Can provide a more accurate representation of real-world scenarios.

Cons:

* May lead to issues related to "this" and external state leakage if not properly managed.
* Requires careful consideration of function scoping and context when using closures.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there are no notable library dependencies. However, the `bind()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in the benchmark code.

**Other considerations**

When using closures, it's essential to be mindful of the following:

* Function scope: Closures can capture variables from their surrounding scope, which can lead to unexpected behavior if not properly managed.
* Context: The context in which a closure is executed can affect how the function behaves. For example, an arrow function created with `() =>` will inherit the context of its surrounding scope.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for testing binding and closures might include:

* Using `ArrowFunctionExpression` instead of `FunctionExpression` to create arrow functions.
* Creating a test framework that simulates different contexts (e.g., using a mocking library) to evaluate how functions behave under various execution scenarios.
* Using a benchmarking library that provides more advanced features, such as support for parallel testing or cache invalidation.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs closure v2 (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):