If setTimeout(foo.func.bind(foo), 1000) is so drastically slower than setTimeout(foo.func, foo, 1000) then our aim for the benefit of the language should be to improve the performance of bind(). A lot of scenarios would benefit from improved bind() performance and we should not create kludge for the benefit of microperformance. So if this is really an issue, those that have the resources and the need should probably get in touch with the v8 team and work with them on improving bind() performance.
Regards, Phil On Jun 10, 10:35 am, Jimb Esser <[email protected]> wrote: > I think what he was suggesting means the difference between > setTimeout(foo.func, foo, 1000); > and > setTimeout(foo.func.bind(foo), 1000); > which have pretty drastically different performance characteristics. That > being said, compared to the overhead of setTimeout itself, or just about > any async call, it's not that big of a deal, and is probably not needed. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Jorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:06 PM, AJ ONeal wrote: > > > >>> I would like to propose that an additional parameter, `context` be > > added to core node modules that accept callbacks to give this-ness to the > > callback. > > > >> But don't call it context please the proper name is receiver. A context > > in JS is much more than "this" :-P > > > > I don't understand why: > > > > setTimeout(function (x, y, z) { > > > // ... > > > }, this, 1000) > > > > is better than: > > > > setTimeout(function (x, y, z) { > > > // ... > > > }.bind(this), 1000) > > > > The problem is that it puts `this` at the bottom of the function, > > > instead of signaling it at the top when you enter the function > > > visually. That's the problem ()=>{} addresses. If you don't like > > > bind(), and can't wait for fat-arrow, > > > But fat arrows don't let you choose the receiver, they simply bind "this" > > lexically, and that's not always what you want. > > > > then do `var me = this` and deal > > > with it that way, or wrap your functions like: > > > > function foo (me) { return function () { > > > me.doWhatever() > > > }} > > > > setTimeout(foo(this), 1000) > > > > Sorry. It's a lovely suggestion, but we don't need this in core. The > > > answer is no. > > > Agreed. > > -- > > Jorge.
