Benchmark: eval vs new Function vs mathjs compiled

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjs/6.6.1/math.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var func = new Function("return 2 * 3");
var code = math.compile("2 * 3");

Tests:

new Function
func();
mathjs
code.evaluate();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Function
mathjs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to execute a simple mathematical expression:

1. `new Function`: Creating a new function using the `Function` constructor.
2. `mathjs.compile()`: Compiling a mathematical expression using Math.js library.
3. `eval()` : Evaluating a string using the built-in `eval()` function.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared in this benchmark are:

1. `new Function` and `eval()`, which are both used to execute JavaScript code directly.
2. `mathjs.compile()` and `eval()`, where Math.js is used to compile a mathematical expression, and then executed using the `evaluate()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **new Function**
	* Pros: Creates an anonymous function that can be used like any other function.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new function object.
2. **eval()**
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, but can pose security risks if used with untrusted input.
	* Cons: Can be slow for complex expressions or large inputs.
3. **mathjs.compile()**
	* Pros: Compiles mathematical expressions to machine code, making it faster than `new Function` or `eval()`.
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Math.js), and the compilation process can add overhead.

**Library: Math.js**

Math.js is a JavaScript library that provides a way to compile and execute mathematical expressions. It's designed to be fast and efficient, making it suitable for performance-critical applications. In this benchmark, Math.js is used to compile a simple mathematical expression (`"2 * 3"`), which is then executed using the `evaluate()` method.

**Special JS Feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The expressions being evaluated are straightforward and don't rely on any advanced JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Math.js, here are a few options:

1. **Babel**: A transpiler that can compile JavaScript code to machine code.
2. **ES6 Transpilers**: Some ES6 transpilers, like Babel or TypeScript, can also compile JavaScript code to machine code.
3. **Other libraries**: There are other libraries available that provide similar functionality to Math.js, such as `numjs` or `js-expr`.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and may not offer the same level of performance or ease of use as Math.js.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code is quite simple:

```javascript
var func = new Function("return 2 * 3");
var code = math.compile("2 * 3");
```

This code creates a new function using `new Function`, compiles the mathematical expression `"2 * 3"` using Math.js, and assigns the resulting function or compiled code to variables.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **"new Function"`**: This test case executes the `func()` call, which uses the `new Function` constructor.
2. **"mathjs"`**: This test case executes the `code.evaluate()` call, which uses Math.js to compile the mathematical expression and then execute it using the `evaluate()` method.

These test cases are designed to measure the performance of each approach in executing a simple mathematical expression.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.134 Safari/537.36 Edg/103.0.1264.71

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Function	11545822.0 Ops/sec
mathjs	8277522.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs new Function vs mathjs compiled (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Function vs mathjs

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Function

mathjs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):