Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
evalTesting
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
notEval vs eval
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
notEval
console.log(2*3)
eval
console.log(eval("2*3"))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
notEval
eval
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results. **What is tested on MeasureThat.net?** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, which means measuring the performance of small snippets of code in various browsers. The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case with two individual tests: "notEval" and "eval". **Options compared: What are the pros/cons of different approaches?** In this benchmark, two methods of evaluating expressions are being tested: 1. **Not using `eval()`**: This approach is generally preferred because it avoids potential security risks associated with executing user-provided input in a web page. * Pros: + Safer and more secure + Less vulnerable to code injection attacks * Cons: + Can be slower due to the need for explicit arithmetic calculations (e.g., `2 * 3` instead of `eval("2*3")`) 2. **Using `eval()`**: This approach can lead to performance issues and security risks. * Pros: + Faster, as it bypasses explicit arithmetic calculations * Cons: + Security risks due to the execution of user-provided input in a web page **Other considerations** Another aspect to consider is the use of `console.log()` for output. In this benchmark, both tests print the result to the console using `console.log()`. However, if performance-critical applications were being benchmarked, alternative logging methods (e.g., sending logs to a server or using asynchronous logging) might be more suitable. **Library usage: What is the library and its purpose?** There is no specific JavaScript library mentioned in this benchmark. The only notable mention of a library is `Gecko/20100101` in the "RawUAString" field, which refers to the Gecko rendering engine used by Firefox. However, this is not a library that can be installed or used like a typical library. **Special JS features or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark, aside from the use of `eval()` and `console.log()`. No advanced concepts like async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript features like `let` and `const` are being used. **Alternative approaches** Other alternatives to measure performance include: 1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or jsperf can simplify the process of writing and running benchmarks. 2. **Browser-specific APIs**: Some browsers provide APIs for benchmarking, such as Chrome's `chrome.runtime.getPerformance()` method. 3. **Third-party tools**: Tools like Node.js's built-in `process.time()` API or Python's `timeit` module can be used to measure performance. In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a simple and straightforward way to test the performance of small JavaScript code snippets in various browsers. By comparing two approaches (not using `eval()` versus using `eval()`), users can gain insights into the performance differences between these methods.
Related benchmarks:
JSON.parse() vs. eval()
eval() vs new Function()
eval vs new Function (fix)
eval vs evalFunction vs function
eval vs evalFunction vs function vs anonymous function
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?