Benchmark: Adding fields to functions

Tests:

eval-set-name
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 100000; i += 1) { f = eval("function(j) { return j; }") f.$name = "f" + i; sum += f(i); } console.log(f.$name);
eval-native-name
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 100000; i += 1) { f = eval("function f" + i + "(j) { return j; }"); sum += f(i); } console.log(f.name);
no-eval-set-name
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 100000; i += 1) { f = function(j) { return j; }; f.$name = "f" + i; sum += f(i); } console.log(f.$name);
no-eval-native-name
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 100000; i += 1) { f = function f(j) { return j; }; sum += f(i); } console.log(f.name);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval-set-name
eval-native-name
no-eval-set-name
no-eval-native-name

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial in today's web development landscape. The provided benchmark definition and test cases aim to measure the performance of different approaches when creating functions with dynamic names using `eval()`.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines a set of tests that compare four different scenarios:

1. **`eval-set-name`**: Uses `eval()` to create a function with a dynamically generated name, followed by assigning this name to the function object.
2. **`eval-native-name`**: Similar to the previous one, but instead of using `$name`, it uses the `name` property directly.
3. **`no-eval-set-name`**: Creates a function without using `eval()` and assigns the name dynamically.
4. **`no-eval-native-name`**: Similar to the previous one, but creates the function without `eval()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four approaches:

* Using `eval()` to create functions (2 options)
	+ One that sets the name using `$name`
	+ One that uses the `name` property directly
* Creating functions without `eval()`
	+ One that assigns the name dynamically
	+ One that uses a named function expression

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `eval()`**: Pros:
	* Allows for dynamic function creation, which can be useful in some cases.
	* Can be more concise.
Cons:
	* Performance overhead due to the use of `eval()`.
	* Security risks if not used carefully (e.g., injecting malicious code).
2. **`name` property**: Pros:
	+ More secure than using `$name`, as it's a built-in property.
	+ Can be faster, as it avoids the overhead of `eval()`.

Cons:
	+ May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support the `name` property.
3. **Dynamic name assignment**: Pros:
	+ Can be more flexible and convenient for certain use cases.
Cons:
	+ May introduce performance overhead due to string concatenation and property lookups.
4. **Named function expressions**: Pros:
	* More readable and maintainable than dynamic function creation using `eval()`.
	* Can be faster, as the compiler can optimize it better.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmarks use any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax, but it does rely on:

1. **`eval()`**: While not necessarily a "special feature," `eval()` is a built-in function that can be used to create functions dynamically.
2. **String concatenation**: Used in the dynamic name assignment scenario.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in alternative approaches, consider the following options:

1. **Function constructor**: Instead of using `eval()`, you can create functions using the `new` keyword and a function constructor (e.g., `function f(i) { return i; }`).
2. **Arrow functions**: You can use arrow functions to simplify function creation and eliminate the need for `eval()` or dynamic name assignment.
3. **Named function expressions with closure**: Instead of using dynamic names, you can create named functions and store them in variables to achieve similar results.

In summary, the benchmark provides a useful comparison of different approaches when creating functions with dynamic names using `eval()`. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method best suits their specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2923.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 56 on Mac OS X 10.12.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval-set-name	0.0 Ops/sec
eval-native-name	0.0 Ops/sec
no-eval-set-name	58.2 Ops/sec
no-eval-native-name	241.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Adding fields to functions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval-set-name vs eval-native-name vs no-eval-set-name vs no-eval-native-name

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval-set-name

eval-native-name

no-eval-set-name

no-eval-native-name

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):