Benchmark: eval vs parseInt vs Number2

Tests:

long eval()
eval("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
long parseInt()
parseInt("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
short eval()
eval("999");
short parseInt()
parseInt("999");
Number class call
Number('999');
Number class call long
Number('99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
long eval()
long parseInt()
short eval()
short parseInt()
Number class call
Number class call long

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmarking test suite that compares the performance of three different approaches to parse and evaluate numerical strings:

1. `eval()`: The built-in `eval()` function executes a string as JavaScript code.
2. `parseInt()`: The `parseInt()` function parses a string as an integer.
3. `Number()`: The `Number()` constructor creates a new Number object from a string.

**Test Cases**

Each test case represents a specific scenario for measuring the performance of one of these approaches:

* `long eval()`, `short eval()`: These tests measure the performance of evaluating a very large and relatively small numerical string, respectively.
* `long parseInt()`, `short parseInt()`: These tests measure the performance of parsing a very large and relatively small numerical string as an integer, respectively.
* `Number class call`, `Number class call long`: These tests measure the performance of creating a new Number object from a string using the `Number()` constructor.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

1. `eval()`: Executes a string as JavaScript code.
2. `parseInt()`: Parses a string as an integer.
3. `Number()`: Creates a new Number object from a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of each approach's pros and cons:

* `eval()`:
	+ Pros: Flexible, can be used for complex calculations.
	+ Cons: Performance-critical applications should avoid it due to its interpretation nature and potential security risks.
* `parseInt()`: Fast, efficient way to parse strings as integers. However, may not work well with non-integer values or special characters.
* `Number()`:
	+ Pros: Creates a new Number object, which can be useful in certain scenarios (e.g., for precision control).
	+ Cons: May be slower than `parseInt()` due to the overhead of creating an object.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, if any JavaScript library is used, it's likely to be a utility or performance optimization library that doesn't significantly impact the baseline performance measurements.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. If there were, they would require additional context to fully understand their implications on the benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring numerical string parsing and evaluation performance might include:

* Using a different browser or platform.
* Employing alternative parsing or evaluation algorithms (e.g., using regular expressions).
* Utilizing specialized libraries or frameworks optimized for performance (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).

Keep in mind that the specific details of these alternatives would require additional context to fully understand their implications on the benchmark results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/92.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
long eval()	1791483.9 Ops/sec
long parseInt()	1511956.8 Ops/sec
short eval()	2199332.0 Ops/sec
short parseInt()	62478688.0 Ops/sec
Number class call	35169172.0 Ops/sec
Number class call long	1938204.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs parseInt vs Number2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: long eval() vs long parseInt() vs short eval() vs short parseInt() vs Number class call vs Number class call long

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

long eval()

long parseInt()

short eval()

short parseInt()

Number class call

Number class call long

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):