Benchmark: eval vs json parse only

Tests:

eval
var crop = 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 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	6011780.0 Ops/sec
parse	5017069.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: `eval` and `JSON.parse`. The script preparation code for each test case is:

* For `eval`: `var crop = eval('[1,2,3,4];');`
* For `JSON.parse`: `var crop = JSON.parse('[1,2,3,4]');`

**What's being tested**

In this benchmark, we're testing the performance difference between using the `eval` function and parsing a JSON string with `JSON.parse`. The key aspect being measured is how fast each approach can execute.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`eval`**: Evaluates a given JavaScript code snippet as if it were executed in the current scope.
2. **`JSON.parse`**: Parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **`eval`**:
	+ Pros: Can be used to execute arbitrary JavaScript code, which can be useful in certain situations (e.g., dynamic scripting).
	+ Cons: Can pose security risks if the input code is not sanitized or validated. It's also slower than parsing JSON because it has to parse and execute the entire code snippet.
* **`JSON.parse`**:
	+ Pros: Faster than `eval`, as it only parses the JSON string into an object without executing any code.
	+ Cons: Requires a valid JSON string, which can be error-prone if not properly formatted.

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, `JSON.parse` relies on the built-in JavaScript `JSON` object, which is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. The code snippets are simple and straightforward.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, some options could be:

* **Using a parser library**: There are libraries like `jsonparser` or `json-stringify-safe` that provide faster parsing capabilities compared to `JSON.parse`.
* **Native JSON parsing**: Some browsers have native support for fast JSON parsing through WebAssembly (WASM) or other optimized implementations.
* **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: If you want to optimize performance, you could consider JIT compilation techniques like those used in Just-in-Time compilers.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements. For this benchmark, using `JSON.parse` is likely a good option for its speed benefits, while `eval` might be better suited for situations requiring dynamic code execution.

Related benchmarks:

eval vs json parse only (version: 0)

Evaluates eval vs json parse only, not declaration of a variable within eval.

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):