Benchmark: eval vs Function

Script Preparation code:

var f = "() => 'yo'"

Tests:

eval
eval(f);
new Function
Function(`"use strict";return ${f}`)()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
new Function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the `eval()` function and creating a new anonymous function using the `Function()` constructor.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`eval(f);`**: This approach uses the built-in `eval()` function to execute the provided string as JavaScript code. The string `f` is defined in the Script Preparation Code section of the benchmark definition and contains an arrow function.
2. **`Function(`"use strict";return ${f}`)()`**: This approach creates a new anonymous function using the `Function()` constructor. The string `f` is passed as an argument to the constructor, which returns the created function. The function body is wrapped in an immediately invoked expression (IIFE) to ensure it's executed immediately.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`eval(f);`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Allows for dynamic evaluation of arbitrary JavaScript code strings.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow due to the overhead of parsing and executing the string as code.
		+ Can pose security risks if used with untrusted input, as it can execute arbitrary code.
2. **`Function(f)();`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a more controlled execution environment compared to `eval()`, reducing security risks.
		+ Allows for better performance due to the optimized compilation of the function body.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex implementation compared to `eval()`.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript implementations (e.g., V8) provide optimized functions like `Function()` that can outperform traditional `Function()` constructors.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, the use of arrow functions (`() => 'yo'`) is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to create and execute anonymous functions could be used instead of `eval()` or the `Function()` constructor:

1. **`with` statement**: Not recommended due to its legacy nature and performance issues.
2. **`eval()` with a `with` clause**: Similar to using `with` alone, but still carries security risks.
3. **`new Function(f)`**: Another approach to create an anonymous function, which can be more efficient than the traditional `Function()` constructor.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide identical performance characteristics as the benchmarked approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.14.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	1990942.1 Ops/sec
new Function	993341.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs Function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs new Function

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

new Function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):