Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Normal Func and new Func
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Func vs func
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var newFunc = new Function("let r = Math.random().toString(36).substring(7).includes('x');"); var func = () => { let r = Math.random().toString(36).substring(7).includes('x'); }
Tests:
new Func
newFunc()
func
func()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Func
func
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare two different approaches: creating a new function using the `new Function()` constructor and defining a regular function with an arrow function syntax (`() => { ... }`). **Options Being Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **`new Function()`**: This method creates a new function by parsing the provided string into a function object. 2. **Arrow Function Syntax (`() => { ... }`)**: This syntax defines a function as an expression, which is then invoked. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * `new Function()`: + Pros: - Can be used to execute arbitrary JavaScript code without compiling or parsing it beforehand. - Does not require the use of arrow functions or other modern language features. + Cons: - Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing and compiling the function string. - May have security risks if the input is user-supplied, as it can execute arbitrary code. * Arrow Function Syntax (`() => { ... }`): + Pros: - Is generally faster than `new Function()` since it doesn't require parsing or compiling the function body. - Does not introduce security risks if used with proper type checking and validation. + Cons: - Requires modern JavaScript features, such as arrow functions and object destructuring. - May be less flexible for executing arbitrary code. **Other Considerations** * The use of `Math.random().toString(36).substring(7).includes('x')` in the benchmark script is likely used to introduce variability and make the results more representative of real-world scenarios. However, its specific purpose and impact on performance are unclear without more context. * The benchmark does not appear to test any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond arrow functions. **Library Usage** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that `Math.random()` and other built-in methods might be used by libraries or frameworks to generate random numbers or perform mathematical operations. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The use of arrow function syntax (`() => { ... }`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. It allows defining functions as expressions, which can simplify code and improve readability.
Related benchmarks:
eval vs new Function vs function (Sample JS Functions)
eval vs new Function (Sample JS Functions)2
Normal Func and new Func 2
Function vs dynamic function vs strict dynamic function
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?