Benchmark: bind vs closure (forked)

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()] } const [a, b, c, d] = createSomething(); for (let j = 0; j < 10000; 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] } const [a, b, c, d] = createSomething(); for (let j = 0; j < 10000; 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: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bind	4077.5 Ops/sec
closure	377895.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

### Benchmark Overview: `bind vs closure`

This benchmark compares two different ways of creating and handling functions in JavaScript: using the `bind` method versus utilizing closures. The key focus is on performance, specifically how many times the functions can be executed in one second.

### Test Cases Explained

1. **Test Case 1: Using `bind`**
   - **Description**: The first test case defines four simple functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, `fn3`, and `fn4`) that return constant values. The `createSomething` function uses the `bind()` method to prepare these functions for execution. The `bind` method is typically used to set the context (`this` value) for the target function or to create a new function with a specific `this` context. However, in this case, it is used without any context, which effectively means it returns the same function without altering `this`.
   - **Execution Loop**: This prepares the functions and executes them 10,000 times.

2. **Test Case 2: Using Closures**
   - **Description**: Like the first test, this test case defines the same four functions. However, it returns the functions directly without using `bind`. The functions are created in a closure by defining them inside `createSomething`, giving them access to their surrounding scope (though it's not specifically utilized in this case).
   - **Execution Loop**: Similarly, this prepares the functions for execution and runs them 10,000 times.

### Results

The benchmark results show the following:
- **Closure**: 13,134.25 executions per second.
- **Bind**: 10,792.75 executions per second.

### Comparison and Considerations

1. **Performance**:
   - **Closure Approach**: More performant, enabling faster function invocations due to reduced overhead. Closures offer direct access to the functions' definitions without additional bindings.
   - **Bind Approach**: Slower due to the additional overhead of the `bind` call, even if no `this` context is set. This shows that using `bind` can introduce unnecessary complexity in function handling, especially when the context does not need to be altered.

2. **Pros and Cons**:
   - **Using `bind`**:
     - **Pros**:
       - `bind` is useful when you need to create a bound function with a specific `this` context.
       - It can help in scenarios where the function is being passed around and needs a consistent context.
     - **Cons**:
       - Additional performance overhead if used unnecessarily (as shown in the benchmark).
       - Can be confusing if used without a need for context.
   - **Using Closures**:
     - **Pros**:
       - Efficient in terms of performance.
       - More straightforward in many cases when context does not need to be set.
     - **Cons**:
       - Potentially leads to memory retention issues if closures capture large variables or objects (however, not a concern for simple return values).
  
### Alternatives

Other alternatives to consider for function handling include:

1. **Arrow Functions**: They streamline function syntax and handle `this` lexically, avoiding the need for `bind` in certain scenarios.
2. **Higher-order Functions**: Instead of creating functions manually, using function factories can help keep code clean and reusable.
3. **Class Methods**: When working within ES6 classes, methods can maintain their context automatically, mitigating needs for `bind`.

Overall, this benchmark highlights important performance considerations between two common function declaration styles, showing that for straightforward cases, closures can be more efficient than using `bind`.

Related benchmarks:

bind vs closure (forked) (version: 1)

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 gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):