Implement Currying using `bind` method

How would you use Function.prototype.bind to create a curried version of a simple add(a, b) function?

What will be the result when you call the curried add with one argument and then the second?

If you forget to return the bound function, what happens when you try to invoke the curried version?

We have a utility fetchData(url, options). Using bind, how would you expose a curried fetchDataCurried so callers can do fetchDataCurried(url)(options)?

A teammate reports that their curried function sometimes returns undefined when called with the second argument. What could be causing that bug?

Explain the trade‑offs of using bind for currying versus returning a manual closure in terms of readability and performance.

Our server‑side rendering pipeline builds a pipeline of functions curried with bind, and we see memory usage growing. What edge cases in bind‑based currying could cause leaks, and how would you mitigate them?

Design a reusable curry utility that works with any arity function and uses bind internally. How would you ensure it preserves this context and works with methods that rely on this?

If we need to send a partially applied function to a worker thread, what limitations does bind‑based currying have and how would you address them?

We are migrating a legacy codebase that heavily uses manual partial application with bind to a functional library like Ramda. What architectural considerations and migration strategy would you propose to replace bind‑based currying while minimizing risk?

How would you evaluate the impact of replacing bind‑based currying on bundle size, tree‑shaking, and runtime performance across multiple teams?

In a micro‑frontend environment, different teams ship their own curry helper using bind. How would you enforce a consistent contract and avoid subtle bugs caused by differing bind semantics?