Benchmark: class method arrow vs bind vs no-bind

class method arrow vs bind vs no-bind (version: 1)

measure the performance of a class method defined with arrow function vs bind

Comparing performance of: existing instance arrow method vs existing instance bind method vs new instance arrow method vs new instance bind method vs create 1000 instances call arrow method vs create 1000 instances call bind method vs no binds vs new instance no binds vs create 1000 instances call no bind method

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

class ArrowMethod {
    constructor() {

    }
    method = () => {}
}
class BindMethod {
    constructor() {
        this.method.bind(this)
    }
    method() {}
}
class NoBind {
    constructor() {

    }
    method() {}
}
const n = new NoBind()
const a = new ArrowMethod()
const b = new BindMethod()

Tests:

existing instance arrow method
a.method()
existing instance bind method
b.method()
new instance arrow method
new ArrowMethod().method()
new instance bind method
new BindMethod().method()
create 1000 instances call arrow method
for (let i=0;i<1000;i++){ new ArrowMethod().method() }
create 1000 instances call bind method
for (let i=0;i<1000;i++){ new BindMethod().method() }
no binds
n.method()
new instance no binds
new NoBind().method()
create 1000 instances call no bind method
for (let i=0;i<1000;i++){ new NoBind().method() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
existing instance arrow method
existing instance bind method
new instance arrow method
new instance bind method
create 1000 instances call arrow method
create 1000 instances call bind method
no binds
new instance no binds
create 1000 instances call no bind method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
existing instance arrow method	100107528.0 Ops/sec
existing instance bind method	100987400.0 Ops/sec
new instance arrow method	79808272.0 Ops/sec
new instance bind method	91779968.0 Ops/sec
create 1000 instances call arrow method	273258.9 Ops/sec
create 1000 instances call bind method	536302.6 Ops/sec
no binds	96264800.0 Ops/sec
new instance no binds	107767528.0 Ops/sec
create 1000 instances call no bind method	1150063.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark from MeasureThat.net is aimed at comparing the performance of different ways to define and call methods in JavaScript classes. Specifically, it evaluates three different approaches for defining class methods: arrow functions, traditional functions using `bind`, and standard methods without any binding.

### Benchmark Details

1. **Definitions of each approach:**
   - **Arrow Method (`ArrowMethod`)**: Uses an arrow function to define the method. Arrow functions capture the lexical `this` value of the context they are defined in, which means they do not need to be bound to the class instance.
   - **Bind Method (`BindMethod`)**: Defines a method using a regular function and binds it to the instance in the constructor using `.bind()`. This ensures that the method retains the correct `this` context when called.
   - **No Bind (`NoBind`)**: Uses standard function definition without any binding. This means when the method is called, `this` will not refer to the class instance unless it's called in the correct context.

2. **Test Cases:**
   Each test case measures the execution performance of these methods in various contexts:
   - **Existing vs. New Instances**: Tests are run on both existing instances of the classes as well as new instances, showcasing how the definitions behave under different object lifetimes.
   - **Batch Creation**: Also measures the performance when creating a high volume (1000) of instances. This tests not just the method call performance but also the instantiation overhead associated with each approach.

### Pros and Cons of Different Approaches

- **Arrow Functions**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - No need for binding - easier to use for callbacks and methods passed to other functions.
    - Lexical `this` preserves context, which can prevent common pitfalls with traditional functions.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Creating a new function for each instance can result in higher memory overhead compared to methods in the prototype.

- **Bind Methods**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Retains correct context without changing how the method is invoked.
    - Familiar structure for those used to classical OOP languages.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Slight performance penalty due to the overhead of using `bind`.
    - The binding must occur in the constructor, which can lead to boilerplate code.

- **No Bind**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Simplicity and slight performance boost in straightforward use cases.
    - Memory efficient, as methods defined this way can be shared via the prototype and the instance.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Requires attention to the context of `this` which can lead to errors if not handled carefully.

### Other Considerations

- **Performance Variability**: The execution speed is highly context-dependent based on how JavaScript engines optimize function calls, which is evidenced in the benchmark results where method performance can vary significantly based on instance creation and calling patterns.
- **Browser Performance**: Results can fluctuate across different browsers and their versions, as optimizations vary. This benchmark uses Chrome, which may not represent performance in other engines like Firefox or Safari.

### Comparison of Results

From the execution results:
- The **Bind Method** and the **No Bind** methods perform similarly and are generally faster than the arrow methods. Each of these approaches achieves between about 193 million and 195 million executions per second.
- The performance of **creating 1000 instances** is significantly slower, especially for arrow methods, where it drops to around 611 thousand executions per second. This disparity highlights the instantiation overhead associated with using arrow functions for method definitions.

### Alternatives

Other alternatives to method definitions in JavaScript include using:
- **Function Declarations**: For utility functions outside of a class context.
- **Prototype Inheritance**: Defining methods directly on the prototype, which is memory efficient but requires careful handling of context.
- **Static Methods**: Use of `static` methods within classes, when context of `this` is not required.

In summary, this benchmark evaluates critical differences in method definitions within JavaScript classes, comparing their performance, memory usage, and implications for context handling during invocations. Understanding these differences helps developers choose the right approach for their specific use cases and performance considerations.

Related benchmarks:

class method arrow vs bind vs no-bind (version: 1)

measure the performance of a class method defined with arrow function vs bind

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

existing instance arrow method

existing instance bind method

new instance arrow method

new instance bind method

create 1000 instances call arrow method

create 1000 instances call bind method

no binds

new instance no binds

create 1000 instances call no bind method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):