Benchmark: Eval va function

Tests:

Eval
eval("2 * 3")
Function
new Function("return 2 * 3")()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Eval
Function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 120 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Eval	2689221.8 Ops/sec
Function	1210368.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the JavaScript microbenchmark test on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different ways of evaluating simple arithmetic expressions in JavaScript: using the `eval()` function and creating a new function using the `Function` constructor. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or has better performance characteristics.

**Options compared:**

1. **`eval()`**: This method uses a built-in JavaScript function that parses and executes the provided string as JavaScript code.
2. **`new Function()`:** This method creates a new anonymous function from the provided string, which can then be executed using the `()` operator.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`eval()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple to use: just pass the expression as a string.
		+ Works with most JavaScript engines.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to security features (e.g., sandboxing) that slow down `eval()`.
		+ Can introduce vulnerabilities if the input is not sanitized or validated.
2. **`new Function()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it avoids security features that slow down `eval()`.
		+ Safer than `eval()`, as the resulting function is sandboxed and cannot access external resources.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more boilerplate code to create a new function from an expression.

**Library and purpose:**

None of the benchmark tests use any specific libraries. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of these two JavaScript built-in functions.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two basic evaluation methods.

**Other alternatives:**

For similar purposes, you might consider using other approaches:

1. **`eval()` with a safer alternative:** Some libraries (e.g., `safe-eval`) provide a safer version of `eval()` that can help mitigate security concerns.
2. **`new Function()` with optimization:** You could experiment with optimizing the `Function` constructor, such as by using `String.prototype.replace()` to remove unnecessary whitespace or characters from the input string.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided benchmark preparation code is empty (`"Script Preparation Code": null, "Html Preparation Code": null`). This means that no additional setup or configuration is required before running the benchmark.

In summary, the MeasureThat.net JavaScript microbenchmark tests the performance of `eval()` and `new Function()`, two fundamental evaluation methods in JavaScript. By comparing these approaches, users can gain insights into the efficiency and security characteristics of each method.

Related benchmarks:

Eval va function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Eval vs Function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Eval

Function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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