Benchmark: eval vs new func

Tests:

eval
eval("2 * 3");
new Function
var func = new Function("return 2 * 3"); func();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
new Function

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.

I'd be happy to explain the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways of performing arithmetic multiplication in JavaScript: using the `eval()` function and creating a new anonymous function with the `new Function()` constructor.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`eval("2 * 3");`**: This uses the `eval()` function to execute a string as JavaScript code.
2. **`var func = new Function("return 2 * 3"); func();`**: This creates a new anonymous function using the `new Function()` constructor and then calls it, effectively performing the same arithmetic operation.

**Pros and Cons**

**`eval()`**

Pros:

* Simple to use: just pass the desired expression as a string.
* Fast execution: since `eval()` is optimized for execution, it can be quite fast.

Cons:

* Security risk: since `eval()` executes arbitrary code, it can pose security risks if used with untrusted input.
* Performance variability: browser implementations may optimize `eval()` differently, affecting performance consistency.
* Limited control: once the string is passed to `eval()`, there's no way to modify or inspect its behavior.

**`new Function()`**

Pros:

* Control: you can easily modify or inspect the generated function.
* Security: since a new function object is created, it doesn't pose security risks like `eval()` does.
* Predictability: browser implementations tend to optimize `new Function()` consistently, making performance more predictable.

Cons:

* More verbose: creating an anonymous function requires more code than using `eval()`.
* Potential overhead: parsing and compiling the new function can introduce additional overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, keep in mind that both are intended for simple arithmetic operations like multiplication. For more complex expressions or performance-critical code, other methods may be more suitable.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring libraries for JavaScript evaluation or function creation, some popular ones include:

* `eval()` itself (built-in)
* `Function` constructor (built-in)
* `function` keyword ( built-in)
* `es6-function-expression` library (optional)

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features used in this benchmark that would require explanation.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare performance of different JavaScript methods for arithmetic operations, consider alternatives like:

1. **Paradox.js**: a microbenchmarking library designed specifically for JavaScript.
2. **Benchmark.js**: another popular microbenchmarking library with a focus on simplicity and flexibility.
3. **V8 Benchmark Suite** (for V8-only browsers): provides a set of pre-built benchmarks for various JavaScript operations.

In conclusion, the MeasureThat.net benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using `eval()` versus creating a new anonymous function using `new Function()`. While `eval()` can be simple to use and fast in execution, its limitations and potential security risks make it less desirable. In contrast, `new Function()` offers more control and predictability, but at the cost of verbosity and potential overhead.

Related benchmarks:

eval vs new func (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs new Function

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

new Function

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):