Benchmark: eval vs new Function vs direct execution

Script Preparation code:

var funcFromNew = new Function("return 2 * 3");
var funcFromLiteral = function() {
    return 2 * 3
};

Tests:

eval
eval("2 * 3");
new Function
funcFromNew();
literal function
funcFromLiteral();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
new Function
literal function

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 provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches to execute a simple arithmetic expression: `2 * 3`. The approaches are:

1. Direct execution using JavaScript literals (`funcFromLiteral`)
2. Using the `new Function` constructor (`funcFromNew`)
3. Using the `eval()` function

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches in terms of the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Direct Execution using JavaScript literals (funcFromLiteral)**:
	* Pros: Fastest, as it directly executes the code without any overhead.
	* Cons: Limited to simple expressions; cannot handle complex logic or conditional statements.
2. **Using the `new Function` constructor (funcFromNew)**:
	* Pros: Can handle more complex expressions and logic, as it allows for function declarations and definitions.
	* Cons: Slower than direct execution, due to the overhead of creating a new function object.
3. **Using the `eval()` function**:
	* Pros: Can evaluate arbitrary JavaScript code, including complex expressions and logic.
	* Cons: Slowest, due to the security features built into modern browsers, which restrict the use of `eval()` for security reasons.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following library:

1. `Function` constructor (`funcFromNew`): Creates a new function object with the given code as its body.
2. `eval()` function: Evaluates the given code and returns its result.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark, but note that some JavaScript features, such as `let` and `const`, were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and may be used in more complex benchmarks.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to executing simple arithmetic expressions might include:

1. **Template literals**: A newer syntax for creating strings with embedded expressions.
2. **Arrow functions**: A concise way to create small, single-expression functions.
3. **Function expressions**: Similar to `new Function`, but can be used in a more flexible way.

However, these alternatives are unlikely to provide significant performance improvements over the three approaches being compared in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/98.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 98 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	876320.4 Ops/sec
new Function	642509504.0 Ops/sec
literal function	666088320.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs new Function vs direct execution (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs new Function vs literal function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

new Function

literal function

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):