Benchmark: eval vs json parse better

Tests:

eval
var crop = (0,eval)('[1,2,3,4]');
parse
var crop = JSON.parse('[1,2,3,4]');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	3353463.2 Ops/sec
parse	3441006.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The provided JSON object represents a simple JavaScript microbenchmark called "eval vs json parse better". The script preparation code is empty, which means that no additional setup or initialization code is required for the benchmark. The HTML preparation code is also empty, indicating that no specific HTML structure is necessary to run the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **"eval"`**
The first test case uses the `eval()` function to parse a JSON string: `"var crop = (0,eval)('[1,2,3,4]');`". The `(0)` part is likely a reference to the "seed" parameter provided by MeasureThat.net.
2. **"parse"`**
The second test case uses the `JSON.parse()` function to parse a JSON string: `"var crop = JSON.parse('[1,2,3,4]');`".

**Comparison of Options**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

*   `eval()`: This is a built-in JavaScript function that evaluates a string as JavaScript code. It's known for its performance and flexibility but also has security risks due to potential code injection attacks.
*   `JSON.parse()` : This is a method from the JSON specification that parses a string into a JSON object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`eval()`**
    *   Pros:
        *   Fast execution
        *   Can parse complex expressions
    *   Cons:
        *   Security risks due to code injection attacks
        *   May have performance issues with large input sizes
*   **`JSON.parse()`** 
    *   Pros:
        *   Secure and safer for parsing JSON strings
        *   Performance is generally good, but can be slower than `eval()` for very complex expressions
*   **Additional Considerations**

The choice between `eval()` and `JSON.parse()` depends on the specific requirements of your use case. If you need to parse simple JSON data, `JSON.parse()` is a safer and more maintainable option. However, if you require fast execution or are working with complex expressions, `eval()` might be a better fit.

**Library Usage**

Neither of these test cases uses any external libraries. The `eval()` function is built-in JavaScript, while the `JSON.parse()` method comes from the JSON specification.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these test cases. Both examples rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to consider when working with JSON parsing include:

*   **`JSON.atob()`**: This is a less common method for parsing JSON strings, but it can be faster than `JSON.parse()` under certain conditions.
*   **External JSON libraries**: If you need more advanced features or improved performance, you might consider using an external library like `json5`, which provides additional functionality and compatibility features.

MeasureThat.net is designed to help developers test and compare the performance of different JavaScript approaches. By running these benchmarks, users can gain insights into the relative performance characteristics of `eval()` versus `JSON.parse()`.

Related benchmarks:

eval vs json parse better (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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