It seems to me that, in ES6, the following two functions are very nearly identical:
function () {
return this;
}.bind(this);
() => {
return this;
};
The end result seems the same: arrow functions produce a JavaScript function object with their this
context bound to the same value as the this
where they are created.
Obviously, in the general sense, Function.prototype.bind
is more flexible than arrow functions: it can bind to values other than the local this
, and it can bind any function's this
at any point in time, potentially long after it is initially created. However, I'm not asking how bind
itself is different from arrow functions, I'm asking how arrow functions differ from immediately calling bind
with this
.
Are there any differences between the two constructs in ES6?
Well, okay, that's a little premature. There are three tiny differences unique to arrow functions.
Arrow functions cannot be used with new
.
This means, of course, that they do not have a prototype
property and cannot be used to create an object with the classically-inspired syntax.
new (() => {}) // TypeError: () => {} is not a constructor
This is probably for the best, though—the way new
works would not make much sense with bound functions.
Arrow functions do not have access to the special arguments
object that ordinary JavaScript functions have access to.
(() => arguments)(1, 2, 3) // ReferenceError: arguments is not defined
This one is probably a little bit more of a gotcha. Presumably this is to remove one of JavaScript's other oddities. The arguments
object is its own special beast, and it has strange behavior, so it's not surprising that it was tossed.
Instead, ES6 has splats that can accomplish the same thing without any magic hidden variables:
((...args) => args)(1, 2, 3) // [1, 2, 3]
Arrow functions do not have their own new.target
property, they use the new.target
of their enclosing function, if it exists.
This is consistent with the other changes to remove "magically" introduced values for arrow functions. This particular change is especially obvious, considering arrow functions can't be used with new
anyway, as mentioned above.
Otherwise, arrows are just like bound functions, semantically. It's possible for arrows to be more performant, since they don't have to carry around the extra baggage and since they don't need to be converted from ordinary functions first, but they're behaviorally exactly the same.