Benchmark: Obfuscator vs. non obfuscated

Tests:

Default code
// Paste your JavaScript code here function hi() { console.log("Hello World!"); hello(); } function hello(){ var a = "a"; var b = "b"; log(a,b); } function log(foo,bar){ console.log(foo,bar); } hi();
Obfuscated
(function(_0x263f11,_0x1dbcfd){var _0x291091=_0x1450,_0x4ceef4=_0x263f11();while(!![]){try{var _0xe65355=-parseInt(_0x291091(0x75))/0x1*(-parseInt(_0x291091(0x7b))/0x2)+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x71))/0x3+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x7a))/0x4*(-parseInt(_0x291091(0x76))/0x5)+parseInt(_0x291091(0x77))/0x6+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x74))/0x7*(parseInt(_0x291091(0x72))/0x8)+parseInt(_0x291091(0x78))/0x9*(parseInt(_0x291091(0x79))/0xa)+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x73))/0xb;if(_0xe65355===_0x1dbcfd)break;else _0x4ceef4['push'](_0x4ceef4['shift']());}catch(_0x43f811){_0x4ceef4['push'](_0x4ceef4['shift']());}}}(_0x4221,0x58601));function hi(){console['log']('Hello\x20World!'),hello();}function _0x1450(_0x5c6f7a,_0xb796d9){var _0x422193=_0x4221();return _0x1450=function(_0x1450f6,_0x1b1b8f){_0x1450f6=_0x1450f6-0x71;var _0x2ee370=_0x422193[_0x1450f6];return _0x2ee370;},_0x1450(_0x5c6f7a,_0xb796d9);}function hello(){var _0x277a55='a',_0x252a04='b';log(_0x277a55,_0x252a04);}function _0x4221(){var _0x3e517b=['1116dUtdOP','2lYMsEN','533883KqYmXG','1789368ONPiif','4146681zZVppB','14llMatN','474967SCxgPU','3370Ekdhnm','566238tqZODc','1820619hxwcdt','30AovKfI'];_0x4221=function(){return _0x3e517b;};return _0x4221();}function log(_0x477fee,_0x201eba){console['log'](_0x477fee,_0x201eba);}hi();
Minified
function hi(){console.log("Hello World!"),hello()}function hello(){log("a","b")}function log(o,l){console.log(o,l)}hi();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Default code
Obfuscated
Minified

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features, and alternatives.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three versions of a JavaScript code: "Default code", "Minified" (obfuscated), and "Obfuscated". The goal is to measure the performance difference between these versions.

**Options Compared**

1. **Default Code**: This version has no obfuscation or minification applied.
2. **Minified Code**: This version uses a tool like UglifyJS to compress and remove unnecessary characters, making it smaller in size.
3. **Obfuscated Code**: This version is intentionally made more difficult for humans to understand by using techniques like string encoding, variable renaming, and function reordering.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Default Code**:
	+ Pros: Human-readable, easy to debug and maintain.
	+ Cons: Larger in size, potentially slower due to overhead of parsing and executing the code.
* **Minified Code**:
	+ Pros: Smaller in size, faster execution, as it eliminates unnecessary characters.
	+ Cons: More difficult for humans to understand and maintain.
* **Obfuscated Code**:
	+ Pros: Can be challenging to reverse-engineer or debug, potentially leading to better security.
	+ Cons: Large difference in performance between minified and obfuscated versions.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark cases use any specific libraries. However, the `UglifyJS` tool is implied as the tool used for minification (Minified code).

**Special JS Features**

1. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)**: The "Obfuscated" code uses an IIFE to create a new scope and hide variables from outer scopes.
2. **String Encoding**: The "Obfuscated" code uses string encoding techniques, like `%` symbols, to make variable names more difficult to guess.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for measuring performance differences in JavaScript include:

1. **Node.js Benchmarks**: Measure execution time on a Node.js server.
2. **ES6 benchmarking libraries**: Tools like `Benchmark.js`, ` jsperf`, or `benchmark` provide a simpler way to write and compare benchmarks.
3. **WebAssembly (WASM)**: Measure performance differences using WASM, which provides a more direct interface between JavaScript and the hardware.

When writing your own benchmarks, consider factors such as:

* Use of modern JavaScript features
* Eliminating unnecessary overhead (e.g., parsing, garbage collection)
* Using consistent data structures and algorithms across different versions
* Considering device-specific optimizations

Keep in mind that performance differences can be influenced by various factors beyond just the code itself, such as hardware capabilities, browser versions, and network conditions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Default code	79931.3 Ops/sec
Obfuscated	67371.7 Ops/sec
Minified	78317.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Obfuscator vs. non obfuscated (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Default code vs Obfuscated vs Minified

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Default code

Obfuscated

Minified

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):