Benchmark: eval vs Function vs lodash.template v3

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var model = {type: {test: "a"}, action: "show", first: "eval", second: "Function"};
var func = new Function("model", "return model.type");

Tests:

eval
eval('model.type')
Function
func(model);
lodash.template
_.template('${type}')(model);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
Function
lodash.template

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmarking test on MeasureThat.net.

**Overview**

The test compares three ways to access a nested property in an object: `eval()`, `Function` constructor, and `lodash.template()` (a part of the Lodash library). The test aims to determine which approach is the fastest.

**What's being tested?**

In the benchmarking script, we have two main variables:

* `model`: an object with a nested property `type.test`
* `func`: a function created using the `Function` constructor that returns the value of `model.type`

The test creates three versions of this scenario:

1. `eval('model.type')`: uses the built-in `eval()` function to access the nested property.
2. `func(model)`: uses the custom-made `func` function to access the nested property.
3. `_template('${type}')(model)`: uses Lodash's `template()` function with a template string to create an interpolated value, and then applies this value to `model`.

**Options compared**

The three options are compared in terms of execution speed.

* **eval()**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that parses the expression passed as an argument and executes it. It can pose security risks if used with untrusted input.
* **Function constructor**: This creates a new function with the given arguments and body, which can be executed by calling it. In this case, we create a function `func` that returns the value of `model.type`.
* **Lodash.template()**: This is a higher-order function from Lodash that takes a template string as an argument and returns a function that creates an interpolated value when called.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **eval()**:
	* Pros: simple to implement, fast execution
	* Cons: security risks due to untrusted input, limited flexibility
2. **Function constructor**:
	* Pros: flexible, can be used with various data types, safe from security risks
	* Cons: slower execution than `eval()` and Lodash template, requires more code
3. **Lodash.template()**:
	* Pros: fast execution, flexible, secure, and easy to use
	* Cons: requires an external library (Lodash), might be overkill for simple cases

**Lodash library**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, object manipulation, function currying, and more. In this case, the `template()` function is used to create an interpolated value.

**Other considerations**

* **Browser-specific behavior**: The test results show browser-specific performance variations.
* **Execution speed vs security**: While Lodash template offers fast execution and security benefits, it requires an external library, which might not be desirable in all cases.

**Alternatives**

If you need to access nested properties in objects, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Bracket notation** (`model['type.test']`): a more modern and secure way to access nested properties.
2. **Destructuring assignment**: (`const { type: { test } } = model;`) for object destructuring, which can be faster than `eval()` or Lodash template.
3. **String interpolation with template literals** (``${model.type.test}``): another modern and secure way to create interpolated strings.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	4045146.5 Ops/sec
Function	7246162.5 Ops/sec
lodash.template	45981.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs Function vs lodash.template v3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs Function vs lodash.template

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

Function

lodash.template

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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