Benchmark: test234 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

eval
eval("2 * 3");
direct
2 * 3

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
direct

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two different approaches:

1. **Direct**: `2 * 3` - This approach tests the performance of simple arithmetic operations, specifically multiplication, without using any functions or libraries.
2. **Eval**: `eval("2 * 3")` - This approach tests the performance of the built-in JavaScript function `eval()`, which executes a string as JavaScript code.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct**: The direct approach is straightforward and simple to understand. It only requires basic arithmetic operations, making it easy to optimize for performance.
	+ Pros:
		- Simple to implement
		- Fast execution
		- No overhead from function calls or libraries
	+ Cons:
		- Limited scope: only tests simple arithmetic operations
		- May not be representative of real-world JavaScript scenarios
* **Eval**: The eval approach tests the performance of a built-in function, which can be useful for certain use cases.
	+ Pros:
		- Tests real-world scenario (executing string as JavaScript code)
		- Can be used in various contexts (e.g., dynamic code evaluation)
	+ Cons:
		- Performance overhead due to the eval() function call
		- Security risks if not properly sanitized input

**Library Usage**

The test case uses the built-in `eval()` function, which is a part of the JavaScript language. Its purpose is to execute a string as JavaScript code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks may use advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax to test performance under different scenarios.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more options, such as:

* **Function calls**: Test the performance of function calls, e.g., `func(2, 3)`.
* **Loops**: Test the performance of simple loops, e.g., `for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { /* code */ }`.
* **Object literals**: Test the performance of object literals, e.g., `{ a: 1, b: 2 }`.

These alternatives would provide a more comprehensive view of JavaScript performance under different scenarios.

Keep in mind that when creating or modifying benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Representativeness**: Does the benchmark accurately represent real-world usage?
* **Optimizations**: Have optimizations been applied to minimize overhead and ensure accurate results?
* **Consistency**: Are the testing conditions consistent across different browsers and environments?

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	2020846.4 Ops/sec
direct	1168182016.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test234 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs direct

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

direct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):