Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
bind vs closure (forked)
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
bind vs closure
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
bind
closure
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
7 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=622905" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
closure
378K/s
bind
4K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
closure
377,895 Ops/sec
bind
4,078 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
gpt-4o-mini
, generated one year ago):
### 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
Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply vs self (with many params)
rest args vs arguments, spread vs apply
bind vs closure
bind vs closure v2
Time Cost for different calling
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?