Benchmark: Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply

Script Preparation code:

function test(msg) {
  console.log(msg);
}

Tests:

direct call
test("Hello");
bind
test.bind(null, "Hello")();
call
test.call(null, "Hello");
apply
test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct call
bind
call
apply

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different ways to call the `test` function: direct call (`test("Hello");`), bind (`test.bind(null, "Hello")();`), call (`test.call(null, "Hello");`), and apply (`test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);`). The goal is to determine which approach has the lowest execution time.

**Options compared**

The four options are:

1. **Direct call**: `test("Hello");`
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	* Cons: May involve additional overhead due to function lookup and argument preparation.
2. **Bind**: `test.bind(null, "Hello")();`
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than direct call if the context is already available.
	* Cons: Creates a new bound function object, which may incur some memory allocation overhead.
3. **Call**: `test.call(null, "Hello");`
	* Pros: Similar to bind, but without creating an additional object reference.
	* Cons: Requires the context (in this case, `null`) to be explicitly passed.
4. **Apply**: `test.apply(null, ["Hello"]);`
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than direct call or call if the arguments are already available.
	* Cons: Creates a new apply object, which may incur some memory allocation overhead.

**Library and purpose**

None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries. The benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none mentioned)**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

* **Context availability**: If the context is already available (e.g., `this` or a global object), bind or call might be more efficient.
* **Argument preparation**: If the arguments are complex or require significant processing, direct call might be less efficient due to additional overhead.
* **Memory allocation**: Creating new objects for bind or apply can incur memory allocation overhead.

**Other alternatives**

Alternative approaches not tested in this benchmark include:

* Using a closure: `function test(msg) { return function() { console.log(msg); }; }();` (bind, call, and apply are not applicable here)
* Using a higher-order function: `test = function(msg) { return function() { console.log(msg); }; }()` (similar to the above example)

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might have different performance characteristics or trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

Direct call vs bind vs call vs apply (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: direct call vs bind vs call vs apply

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

direct call

bind

call

apply

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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