Direct method call slower than method_exists()

> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Rodrigues <david.proweb@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have take note that a lot of projects (like Laravel) prefer uses >> method_exists() than implements an empty function (that should be useful >> to >> IDE when it is not annotated as an @method on class). >> >> For some reason, method_exists() will works faster than direct call when >> method doesn't exists vs. a direct method call when method is empty. >> >> My benchmarks: >> >> Case #1: >> * Direct call, empty method: >> * Cycles by min. : 26.459.804 >> >> Case #2: >> * Direct call, simple content (eg. is_bool(true)): >> * Cycles by min. : 24.771.454 >> - 6.38% slower than Case #1 >> >> Case #3: >> * method_exists(), no method: >> * Cycles by min. : 45.014.690 >> - 70.12% faster than Case #1 >> >> Case #4: >> * method_exists(), method exists with simple content: >> * Cycles by min. : 18.068.555 >> - 27.06% slower than Case #2 >> >> You will note that method_exists() will be more useful when method doesn't >> exists (+70% faster), but worse in cases where it does (27% slower). Which >> make that a hard decision, because you need "guess" the method declaration >> usage when implements something like that. If case the method existence is >> very low, then you will prefer method_exists(), which is bad for code >> design. >> >> My suggestion here (that I don't know if could be applied as is): identify >> empty methods and avoiding the execution (once that it will not do >> anything >> anyway). So we could just implement empty methods without any problem. >> >> Maybe it could be done at this point and related: >> https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/Zend/zend_languag >> e_parser.y#L725 >> >> -- >> David Rodrigues > > > Could you please provide the used benchmarking code? > > Nikita >