Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test234
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
eval vs direct
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var func = new Function("return 2 * 3");
Tests:
eval
eval("2 * 3");
direct
2 * 3
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
eval
direct
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 what's being tested in the provided JSON. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is represented by two different approaches: 1. **Direct**: `2 * 3` - This approach tests the performance of simple arithmetic operations, specifically multiplication, without using any functions or libraries. 2. **Eval**: `eval("2 * 3")` - This approach tests the performance of the built-in JavaScript function `eval()`, which executes a string as JavaScript code. **Pros and Cons** * **Direct**: The direct approach is straightforward and simple to understand. It only requires basic arithmetic operations, making it easy to optimize for performance. + Pros: - Simple to implement - Fast execution - No overhead from function calls or libraries + Cons: - Limited scope: only tests simple arithmetic operations - May not be representative of real-world JavaScript scenarios * **Eval**: The eval approach tests the performance of a built-in function, which can be useful for certain use cases. + Pros: - Tests real-world scenario (executing string as JavaScript code) - Can be used in various contexts (e.g., dynamic code evaluation) + Cons: - Performance overhead due to the eval() function call - Security risks if not properly sanitized input **Library Usage** The test case uses the built-in `eval()` function, which is a part of the JavaScript language. Its purpose is to execute a string as JavaScript code. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks may use advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax to test performance under different scenarios. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more options, such as: * **Function calls**: Test the performance of function calls, e.g., `func(2, 3)`. * **Loops**: Test the performance of simple loops, e.g., `for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { /* code */ }`. * **Object literals**: Test the performance of object literals, e.g., `{ a: 1, b: 2 }`. These alternatives would provide a more comprehensive view of JavaScript performance under different scenarios. Keep in mind that when creating or modifying benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like: * **Representativeness**: Does the benchmark accurately represent real-world usage? * **Optimizations**: Have optimizations been applied to minimize overhead and ensure accurate results? * **Consistency**: Are the testing conditions consistent across different browsers and environments?
Related benchmarks:
new Func vs plain
eval vs new Function vs mathjs (evaluate) vs mathjs (chain)
eval func
eval vs new Function() vs mathjs (evaluate) vs mathjs (chain)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?