Benchmark: IIFE vs eval() - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var result;

Tests:

eval
eval("(function(){var sum = 0; for (var i = 1; i < 100; i++){sum += i;} return sum;}());");
iife
(function(){var sum = 0; for (var i = 1; i < 100; i++){sum += i;} return sum;}());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
iife

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to execute a simple JavaScript function: `eval()` and Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE).

The test case uses a small function that calculates the sum of numbers from 1 to 99. The function is defined in two ways:

1. Using `eval()`: `eval("...")`
2. As an IIFE: `(function(){...})(...)`

**Options compared**

We have two options being compared:

1. **`eval()`**: Evaluates a string as JavaScript code.
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to use and understand.
		+ Can be used to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be security-risky if used with untrusted input.
		+ Performance can vary depending on the complexity of the code being evaluated.
2. **IIFE**: An Immediately Invoked Function Expression, which is a function that's defined and executed immediately.
	* Pros:
		+ More secure than `eval()` since it cannot be tricked into executing arbitrary code.
		+ Can be faster for simple expressions.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **`eval()`**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, can execute complex calculations.
	+ Cons: Security risks, performance issues.
* **IIFE**:
	+ Pros: More secure, potentially faster for simple expressions.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive, requires function definition and invocation.

**Library or special JavaScript feature**

Neither of the two options uses a library or a special JavaScript feature. The test case is using built-in JavaScript features to execute the functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to compare other approaches, some alternatives could be:

* Using a different evaluation method, such as `Function()` or `new Function()`
* Comparing with another execution method, like Web Workers or WebAssembly
* Testing with different optimization strategies or caching mechanisms

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different implications for performance, security, and complexity.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code is:
```javascript
var result;
```
This is a simple variable declaration. There's no additional functionality being executed.

**Individual test cases**

We have two individual test cases:

1. `eval`: Uses `eval()` to execute the given string.
2. `iife`: Defines and executes an IIFE using the provided function definition.

Both tests measure the execution speed of the respective functions by running them multiple times and measuring the time it takes to complete.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	3806187.0 Ops/sec
iife	15137022.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

IIFE vs eval() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs iife

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

iife

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):