Benchmark: eval vs parseInt

Tests:

long eval()
eval("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
long parseInt()
parseInt("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
short eval()
eval("999");
short parseInt()
parseInt("999");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
long eval()
long parseInt()
short eval()
short parseInt()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
long eval()	3884444.5 Ops/sec
long parseInt()	94253560.0 Ops/sec
short eval()	9385531.0 Ops/sec
short parseInt()	320751328.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares the execution speed of two JavaScript functions: `eval()` and `parseInt()`. The benchmarks measure how long it takes for each function to process specific input values, including very large numbers.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`eval()`**: Evaluates a string as JavaScript code.
2. **`parseInt()`**: Converts a string to an integer value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`eval()`**:
	* Pros: Can evaluate any valid JavaScript expression, making it versatile.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to the overhead of executing arbitrary code. Additionally, it can pose security risks if used with untrusted input.
2. **`parseInt()`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for converting strings to integers. It also provides better security compared to `eval()`.
	* Cons: Limited to only integer conversions; cannot evaluate expressions like `eval()`.

**Library Used (if any)**

None of the test cases explicitly use a JavaScript library. However, the input values used in the benchmarks are likely intended to demonstrate performance differences between `eval()` and `parseInt()` without relying on external libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested or used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches for converting strings to integers or evaluating expressions include:

1. **`Number()`**: A simpler method for converting strings to numbers, which can be faster than `parseInt()`.
2. **Regular Expressions**: Using regular expression techniques (e.g., `/\d+/`) to extract integer values from strings.
3. **Native functions**: Some browsers have native functions like `Int32Array` or `BigInt64Array` for working with large integers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to `eval()` and `parseInt()`, as they often involve different trade-offs between performance, security, and simplicity.

Related benchmarks:

eval vs parseInt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: long eval() vs long parseInt() vs short eval() vs short parseInt()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

long eval()

long parseInt()

short eval()

short parseInt()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):