Benchmark: eval vs Function vs lodash.template v4

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var model = {type: {test: "a"}, action: "show", first: "eval", second: "Function"};
var func = new Function("model", "return model.type");
var func1 = new Function("model", "return _.get(model,'type')");

Tests:

eval
eval('model.type')
Function
func(model);
lodash.template
_.template('${type}')(model);
新表达式执行引擎
func1(model);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
Function
lodash.template
新表达式执行引擎

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section defines two variables: `model` and `func`. The `model` object has a nested property `type` with a value of `"a"`. The `func` variable is created using the `Function` constructor, passing `model` as an argument. This creates a new function that takes `model` as input and returns the value of `model.type`.

The `Html Preparation Code` section includes a reference to the Lodash library, specifically version 4.17.5.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **eval('model.type')**
This test case uses the built-in JavaScript `eval()` function to execute the string `"model.type"` and retrieve the value of `model.type`. The `eval()` function is a powerful but often criticized feature in JavaScript, as it can pose security risks if used with untrusted input.

Pros:

* Simple to implement
* Works across different browsers and environments

Cons:

* Security risk due to dynamic evaluation
* Can lead to performance issues if not optimized

2. **func(model);**
This test case uses the `Function` constructor to create a new function that takes `model` as an argument and returns the value of `model.type`. This approach is similar to option 1 but uses a more explicit syntax.

Pros:

* More readable and maintainable than using `eval()`
* Can be optimized for performance

Cons:

* Still requires manual memory management
* May incur overhead due to function creation

3. **_.template('${type}')(model);**
This test case uses the Lodash `template()` function to create a template string that replaces `${type}` with the value of `model.type`. The resulting template is then executed on the `model` object.

Pros:

* More concise and expressive than using functions or `eval()`
* Can be optimized for performance

Cons:

* Requires additional dependencies (Lodash)
* May incur overhead due to template creation and execution

4. **func1(model);**
This test case uses a custom implementation of a "new expression engine" that is not immediately clear from the provided code. However, based on the benchmark name, it appears to be a custom implementation of an abstract syntax tree (AST) or expression evaluation engine.

Pros:

* May offer better performance and optimization opportunities
* Can provide more control over evaluation semantics

Cons:

* Requires significant development effort and expertise
* May incur additional overhead due to custom implementation

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these options, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Performance: How do different approaches impact execution speed?
* Security: Which approaches pose security risks if used with untrusted input?
* Readability and maintainability: How easy is each approach to understand and modify?
* Dependencies: What additional libraries or dependencies are required for each approach?

In general, the choice of evaluation strategy depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project. Options 1 and 2 (using `eval()` or functions) provide a high degree of flexibility but may incur performance overhead. Option 3 (Lodash template) offers a concise and expressive syntax but requires additional dependencies. Option 4 (custom expression engine) provides potentially better performance but requires significant development effort.

The benchmark results provided can help determine the relative performance characteristics of each approach, which can inform future development decisions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	5565237.0 Ops/sec
Function	13570461.0 Ops/sec
lodash.template	69999.9 Ops/sec
新表达式执行引擎	9193184.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs Function vs lodash.template v4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs Function vs lodash.template vs 新表达式执行引擎

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

eval

Function

lodash.template

新表达式执行引擎

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):