Benchmark: eval vs Function()

Tests:

eval
eval("4 * 6");
Function()
const new_function = new Function("4 * 6"); new_function();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
eval
Function()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/114.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
eval	2307961.2 Ops/sec
Function()	167622.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two ways of executing arithmetic expressions: using the `eval()` function and creating a new anonymous function using the `Function()` constructor.

**Options compared:**

1. **`eval()`**: This method executes a string as JavaScript code, allowing you to execute arbitrary expressions.
2. **`Function()` constructor**: This method creates a new, unnamed function that can be executed like any other function. The expression is passed as an argument to the constructor.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`eval()`**:
	* Pros: Very concise and easy to use for simple expressions.
	* Cons:
		+ Security risks due to the ability to execute arbitrary code.
		+ Performance overhead compared to direct arithmetic execution.
2. **`Function()` constructor**:
	* Pros:
		+ More secure than `eval()` since it doesn't execute arbitrary code.
		+ Can be faster for simple expressions, as it avoids the overhead of parsing and executing JavaScript syntax.
	* Cons: Requires more code to achieve the same result.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. However, if you were to use a library like `es5-shim` or `browserlist`, you might use it to enable the `Function()` constructor or polyfill other features required by modern browsers.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly used in everyday development. However, if you wanted to test a more advanced feature like Arrow functions (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), it might look like this:
```javascript
const new_function = () => 4 * 6;
new_function();
```
**Other alternatives:**

For testing arithmetic expressions, other approaches could include:

1. Using `Mathematical expression parser libraries` like `express-eval` or `mathjs`.
2. Creating a custom arithmetic expression evaluator using a stack-based approach.
3. Testing the execution of arithmetic expressions in different JavaScript engines (e.g., SpiderMonkey, V8) using benchmarking frameworks like `node-benchmark`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement and may require more expertise in JavaScript implementation details.

Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these points or provide further insights!

Related benchmarks:

eval vs Function() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: eval vs Function()

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

eval

Function()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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