Benchmark: eval func - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var func = new Function("return 2 * 3");

Tests:

func
func()
eval
eval(func)()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
func
eval

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "eval func". The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different approaches: calling a function directly (i.e., `func()`) and using the `eval()` function to execute another function (`eval(func)()`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code for this benchmark is:
```javascript
var func = new Function("return 2 * 3;");
```
This line of code defines a new anonymous function that returns the result of multiplying 2 and 3. The `new Function` constructor is used to create a new function, which is then assigned to the `func` variable.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided for this benchmark, which suggests that the script will be executed in a Node.js environment or a similar context where HTML parsing is not necessary.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Calling `func()` directly**: This involves executing the `func` function as a regular function call.
2. **Using `eval(func)()`**: This involves using the `eval()` function to execute the string representation of the `func` function.

**Pros and Cons**

**Calling `func()` directly:**

* Pros:
	+ More efficient, since it avoids the overhead of parsing and executing a string representation of the function.
	+ Can be faster for large functions or complex logic.
* Cons:
	+ Limited to execution as a regular function call, which may not be desirable in some cases (e.g., when using higher-order functions).

**Using `eval(func())`:**

* Pros:
	+ More flexible, since it allows the use of any string representation of a function, including those with multiple arguments or complex logic.
* Cons:
	+ Slower due to the overhead of parsing and executing a string representation of the function.
	+ May be more vulnerable to security risks, such as code injection attacks.

**Other Considerations**

The use of `eval()` can also introduce other considerations:

* **Security:** As mentioned earlier, using `eval()` can make your code more vulnerable to security risks. It's essential to ensure that the input is properly sanitized and validated.
* **Performance:** While `eval()` can be faster for simple functions, its overhead can add up quickly for complex logic or large datasets.

**Library/Features Used**

There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark, aside from the built-in `Function` constructor and the `eval()` function. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have additional optimizations or features that affect performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is standard for modern JavaScript (ES6+).

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to comparing these two options might include:

* Using a different function creation method, such as `Function.prototype.toString()` or a library like `Function.prototype.toString.call()`.
* Comparing the performance of different function execution methods, such as using `arguments.callee` instead of `this` or `bind()`.
* Incorporating additional benchmarks that test the performance of specific JavaScript features or syntax.

However, for this particular benchmark, calling `func()` directly and using `eval(func())` are the primary approaches being compared.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
func	31800698.0 Ops/sec
eval	7110078.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval func (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: func vs eval

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

func

eval

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):