Benchmark: eval vs Function string interpolation vs pl vs native

Script Preparation code:

var templ = "This is a ${model.type} interpolation example, to ${model.action} the difference between ${model.first} and ${model.second}!";

var model = {type: "string", action: "show", first: "eval", second: "Function"};

var func = new Function("model", "return `" + templ + "`;");

var z;

Tests:

eval
z=eval("`" + templ + "`");
new Function
z=func(model);
native
z = `This is a ${model.type} interpolation example, to ${model.action} the difference between ${model.first} and ${model.second}!`;
plus
z = 'This is a '+model.type+' interpolation example, to '+model.action+' the difference between '+model.first+' and '+model.second+'!';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
new Function
native
plus

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark that compares the performance of different approaches to achieve templating in a string.

**Options being compared:**

1. `eval()`: The `eval()` function is used to execute a string as JavaScript code.
2. `Function`: The `Function` constructor is used to create a new function with a given name and arguments.
3. `native`: This approach uses template literals (the backtick syntax) to achieve templating in a string.
4. `plus`: This approach concatenates strings using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **eval()**:
	* Pros: Can be used for simple, one-time use cases where performance isn't critical.
	* Cons: Can pose security risks if not sanitized properly, as it executes arbitrary code.
2. **Function**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than `eval()` when used correctly, as it avoids the overhead of parsing and executing code at runtime.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new function object, which can be slower for simple use cases.
3. **native** (template literals):
	* Pros: Fastest approach, as it avoids parsing and executing code at runtime.
	* Cons: Limited to use with modern JavaScript engines that support template literals.
4. **plus**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to implement, but slower than `native` due to string concatenation overhead.

**Library usage:** None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax:** The benchmark uses template literals (the backtick syntax) in the `native` approach. This is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other considerations:**

* The `Function` constructor can be vulnerable to code injection attacks if not used carefully.
* The `eval()` function should only be used when the input string is trusted, as it executes arbitrary code.

**Alternative approaches:**

1. **String interpolation**: Some libraries like Handlebars or Pug provide built-in support for templating in strings.
2. **Template engines**: Separate template engines like Mustache or Nunjucks can be used to achieve templating in a more structured way.
3. **String manipulation functions**: Some browsers have built-in string manipulation functions like `String.prototype.replace()` or `String.prototype.format()`, which can be used for simple templating needs.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

eval vs Function string interpolation vs pl vs native (version: 0)

Compares how eval() compares to Function in some form of templating

Comparing performance of: eval vs new Function vs native vs plus

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

new Function

native

plus

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):