Excerpt
is there any reason to ever use send?
call needs a method object, send doesn't:
```plain text
class Foo
def method_missing(name)
"#{name} called"
end
end
Foo.new.send(:bar) #=> "bar called"
Foo.new.method(:bar).call #=> undefined method `bar' for class `Foo' (NameError)
```
is there any reason to ever use eval?
eval evaluates arbitrary expressions, it's not just for calling a method.
Regarding benchmarks, send seems to be faster than method + call:
```plain text
require 'benchmark'
class Foo
def bar; end
end
Benchmark.bm(4) do |b|
b.report("send") { 1_000_000.times { Foo.new.send(:bar) } }
b.report("call") { 1_000_000.times { Foo.new.method(:bar).call } }
end
```
Result:
```plain text
user system total real
send 0.210000 0.000000 0.210000 ( 0.215181)
call 0.740000 0.000000 0.740000 ( 0.739262)
```
Think of it this way:
### Method 1 (method.call): Single run-time
If you run Ruby once on your program straight through, you control the entire system and you can hold onto a "pointer to your method" via the "method.call" approach. All you are doing is holding on to a handle to "live code" that you can run whenever you want. This is basically as fast as calling the method directly from within the object (but it is not as fast as using object.send - see benchmarks in other answers).
### Method 2 (object.send): Persist name of method to database
But what if you want to store the name of the method you want to call in a database and in a future application you want to call that method name by looking it up in the database? Then you would use the second approach, which causes ruby to call an arbitrary method name using your second "s.send(:dynamic_method)" approach.
### Method 3 (eval): Self-modifying method code
What if you want to write/modify/persist code to a database in a way that will run the method as brand new code? You might periodically modify the code written to the database and want it to run as new code each time. In this (very unusual case) you would want to use your third approach, which allows you to write your method code out as a string, load it back in at some later date, and run it in its entirety.
For what it's worth, generally it is regarded in the Ruby world as bad form to use Eval (method 3) except in very, very esoteric and rare cases. So you should really stick with methods 1 and 2 for almost all problems you encounter.
Here is all possible method calls:
```plain text
require 'benchmark/ips'
class FooBar
def name; end
end
el = FooBar.new
Benchmark.ips do |x|
x.report('plain') { el.name }
x.report('eval') { eval('el.name') }
x.report('method call') { el.method(:name).call }
x.report('send sym') { el.send(:name) }
x.report('send str') { el.send('name') }
x.compare!
end
```
And results are:
```plain text
Warming up --------------------------------------
plain 236.448k i/100ms
eval 20.743k i/100ms
method call 131.408k i/100ms
send sym 205.491k i/100ms
send str 168.137k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
plain 9.150M (± 6.5%) i/s - 45.634M in 5.009566s
eval 232.303k (± 5.4%) i/s - 1.162M in 5.015430s
method call 2.602M (± 4.5%) i/s - 13.009M in 5.010535s
send sym 6.729M (± 8.6%) i/s - 33.495M in 5.016481s
send str 4.027M (± 5.7%) i/s - 20.176M in 5.027409s
Comparison:
plain: 9149514.0 i/s
send sym: 6729490.1 i/s - 1.36x slower
send str: 4026672.4 i/s - 2.27x slower
method call: 2601777.5 i/s - 3.52x slower
eval: 232302.6 i/s - 39.39x slower
```
It's expected that plain call is the fastest, no any additional allocations, symbol lookups, just lookup and evaluation of method.
As for send via symbol, it is faster than via string as its much more easer to allocate memory for symbol. Once it's defined it's stored for long term in memory and there no reallocations.
The same reason can be said about method(:name) (1) it's requires to allocate memory for Proc object (2) we are calling the method in class which leads for additional method lookup which takes time too.
eval is runs interpreter so it's the heaviest.
I updated the benchmark from @Stefan to check if there are some speed improvements when saving reference to method. But again – send is much faster than call
```plain text
require 'benchmark'
class Foo
def bar; end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo_bar = foo.method(:bar)
Benchmark.bm(4) do |b|
b.report("send") { 1_000_000.times { foo.send(:bar) } }
b.report("call") { 1_000_000.times { foo_bar.call } }
end
```
These are the results:
```plain text
user system total real
send 0.080000 0.000000 0.080000 ( 0.088685)
call 0.110000 0.000000 0.110000 ( 0.108249)
```
So send seems to be the one to take.
The whole point of send and eval is that you can change the command dynamically. If the method you want to execute is fixed, then you can hard-wire that method without using send or eval.
```plain text
receiver.fixed_method(argument)
```
But when you want to invoke a method that varies or you do not know in advance, then you cannot write that directly. Hence the use of send or eval.
```plain text
receiver.send(method_that_changes_dynamically, argument)
eval "#{code_to_evaluate_that_changes_more_dramatically}"
```
Additional use of send is that, as you noticed, you can call a method with explicit receiver using send.