Related
I'm trying to make a generic table-top RPG helper web app. It has to be generic because Wizards of the Coast is very protective of their copyrights. So, in order to avoid cease-and-desists, the system has to be capable of loading arbitrary rules. That said, my buddies and I (along with most any other user) will be using it for D&D.
In D&D, modifiers are based on a character's stats. To get a modifier, you take the stat, subtract 10, divide by 2, and round down.
function getModifier(statValue) {
return Math.floor((statValue - 10) / 2);
}
My app will be capable to loading a game's rules from a .json file. I want to be able to make this modifier function user-definable. The easiest way would be to just eval() whatever they provide in the .json file, but obviously that's a terrible idea due to security issues.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to get around this in a secure manner. Obviously I could write my own parser, but that's more complicated than I'd like/am currently capable of.
Ideas?
I did a quick google search and found two options - http://mathjs.org and http://jsep.from.so
btw. writing your own parser is not that difficult. You may be able to write one that's sufficient for your purpose in less than 100 lines of code
First, bear in mind that this is all on the client-side. So long as you trust the JSON (it came from your server or it is controlled alongside the application itself), then you can use it. That doesn't completely rule out some trojan inserting malicious rules, but I don't think botnets have learned to play D&D yet.
To literally avoid eval and provide some modicum of security, you can use new Function. It takes a list of argument names followed by the function body, allowing you a large amount of control over how the function is defined and where it can be referenced from. You only need to store the body in the JSON file, allowing you to largely control the parameters and make it difficult to assign to the global scope, minimizing your attack surface (such as it is) quite a lot.
If you want to have fun with this and now your rules will largely be mathematical, you may consider using a tool like pegjs to generate a parser for your rules. Calculators are one of the classic introductions to parsers and compilers, so this could be an opportunity to play with some fun tech. The rules and parsers built by pegjs are very easy to use in a JS project (I have an example using PegJS and ES6 via Babel).
There are two options as I see it. One, if you 100% want to define the function in .json, you will need to parse. JSON does not allow functions, so you need to store the function as a string and eval it.
The better way would be to also provide a config.js ability. Perhaps the .json would have a "configUrl": property, and then expose well known apis, eg RPGHelper.setModifer(someFunction) that you can call from inside the config.js file. The user is then free to define whatever arbitrary logic there.
One solution to your problem is to use sandboxed iframes (current supported by all major browsers
You run user code on a separate page, with limited priviliges, in such a way that the code does not interfere with the rest of the application. You can communicate with the sandboxed page using postMessage() and window.onmessage.
We've got a lot of calls to our logging methods (that just wrap console.log) all throughout our JS in our MVC3 web app and I'd like to remove them from the JavaScript when we build our test and production builds.
Currently we're using the bundling and minification nuget package to bundle and minify our JS into one big minified file but I'd like to have it rip out the calls to the logging methods as well.
We do have a mechanism in place that replaces the logging methods with empty functions so they won't do any work in production, but they are still called and various arguments are passed in. On top of this, there are "large" strings that are passed and those could be removed, reducing filesize.
The ideal solution in my mind would be to somehow parse the JavaScript and detect / remove the calls to those methods. Preferably in some sort of JavaScript engine and not just a regular expression.
Either way, I just want my calls to my logging methods removed in the final JavaScript that is served up in production. Does anyone know how I'd accomplish this additional minification?
Yep, the IBundleTransform interface was designed for this scenario. In RC bits here's what we envisioned:
new Bundle("~/bundles/js", new LogRemoverTransform(), new JsMinify());
Basically, you construct a bundle and chain two transforms, first stripping your log methods, and then running through normal minification. Prior to RC, you would have to do the composition inside of your IBundleTransform.
You could write your own implementation of IBundleTransform that first removes calls to your logging methods via a regular expression and then calls the default bundling and minification functionality. As long as your calls are fairly simple, it shouldn't be hard to come up with. It might get tricky though, depending on how you call your logging code.
For example, it'd be fairly hard (for me) to build a regex that would catch the entirety of a logging call like this:
NS.log(function () { return "this is going to be hard to parse"; }());
But, as long as you don't log like that, it shouldn't be a difficult regex to write.
I'm new-ish to JavaScript. I understand many of the concepts of the language, I've been reading up on the prototype inheritance model, and I'm whetting my whistle with more and more interactive front-end stuff. It's an interesting language, but I'm always a bit turned off by the callback spaghetti that is typical of many non-trivial interaction models.
Something that has always seemed strange to me is that in spite of the readability nightmare that is a nest of JavaScript nested callbacks, the one thing that I very rarely see in many examples and tutorials is the use of predefined named functions as callback arguments. I'm a Java programmer by day, and discarding the stereotypical jabs about Enterprise-y names for units of code one of the things I've come to enjoy about working in a language with a strong selection of featureful IDE's is that using meaningful, if long, names can make the intent and meaning of code much clearer without making it more difficult to actually be productive. So why not use the same approach when writing JavaScript code?
Giving it thought, I can come up with arguments that are both for and against this idea, but my naivety and newness to the language impairs me from reaching any conclusions as to why this would be good at a technical level.
Pros:
Flexibility. An asynchronous function with a callback parameter could be reached by one of many different code paths and it could be harried to have to write a named function to account for every single possible edge case.
Speed. It plays heavily in to the hacker mentality. Bolt things on to it until it works.
Everyone else is doing it
Smaller file sizes, even if trivially so, but every bit counts on the web.
Simpler AST? I would assume that anonymous functions are generated at runtime and so the JIT won't muck about with mapping the name to instructions, but I'm just guessing at this point.
Quicker dispatching? Not sure about this one either. Guessing again.
Cons:
It's hideous and unreadable
It adds to the confusion when you're nested nuts deep in a swamp of callbacks (which, to be fair, probably means you're writing poorly constructed code to begin with, but it's quite common).
For someone without a functional background it can be a bizarre concept to grok
With so many modern browsers showing the ability to execute JavaScript code much faster than before, I'm failing to see how any trivial sort of performance gain one might get out using anonymous callbacks would be a necessity. It seems that, if you are in a situation where using a named function is feasible (predictable behavior and path of execution) then there would be no reason not to.
So are there any technical reasons or gotchas that I'm not aware of that makes this practice so commonplace for a reason?
I use anonymous functions for three reasons:
If no name is needed because the function is only ever called in one place, then why add a name to whatever namespace you're in.
Anonymous functions are declared inline and inline functions have advantages in that they can access variables in the parent scopes. Yes, you can put a name on an anonymous function, but that's usually pointless if it's declared inline. So inline has a significant advantage and if you're doing inline, there's little reason to put a name on it.
The code seems more self-contained and readable when handlers are defined right inside the code that's calling them. You can read the code in almost sequential fashion rather than having to go find the function with that name.
I do try to avoid deep nesting of anonymous functions because that can be hairy to understand and read. Usually when that happens, there's a better way to structure the code (sometimes with a loop, sometimes with a data table, etc...) and named functions isn't usually the solution there either.
I guess I'd add that if a callback starts to get more than about 15-20 lines long and it doesn't need direct access to variables in the parent scope, I would be tempted to give it a name and break it out into it's own named function declared elsewhere. There is definitely a readability point here where a non-trivial function that gets long is just more maintainable if it's put in its own named unit. But, most callbacks I end up with are not that long and I find it more readable to keep them inline.
I prefer named functions myself, but for me it comes down to one question:
Will I use this function anywhere else?
If the answer is yes, I name/define it. If not, pass it as an anonymous function.
If you only use it once, it doesn't make sense to crowd the global namespace with it. In today's complex front-ends, the number of named functions that could have been anonymous grows quickly (easily over 1000 on really intricate designs), resulting in (relatively) large performance gains by preferring anonymous functions.
However, code maintainability is also extremely important. Each situation is different. If you're not writing a lot of these functions to begin with, there's no harm in doing it either way. It's really up to your preference.
Another note about names. Getting in the habit of defining long names will really hurt your file size. Take the following example.
Assume both of these functions do the same thing:
function addTimes(time1, time2)
{
// return time1 + time2;
}
function addTwoTimesIn24HourFormat(time1, time2)
{
// return time1 + time2;
}
The second tells you exactly what it does in the name. The first is more ambiguous. However, there are 17 characters of difference in the name. Say the function is called 8 times throughout the code, that's 153 extra bytes your code didn't need to have. Not colossal, but if it's a habit, extrapolating that to 10s or even 100s of functions will easily mean a few KB of difference in the download.
Again however, maintainability needs to be weighed against the benefits of performance. This is the pain of dealing with a scripted language.
A bit late to the party, but some not yet mentioned aspects to functions, anonymous or otherwise...
Anon funcs are not easily referred to in humanoid conversations about code, amongst a team. E.g., "Joe, could you explain what the algorithm does, within that function. ... Which one? The 17th anonymous function within the fooApp function. ... No, not that one! The 17th one!"
Anon funcs are anonymous to the debugger as well. (duh!) Therefore, the debugger stack trace will generally just show a question mark or similar, making it less useful when you have set multiple breakpoints. You hit the breakpoint, but find yourself scrolling the debug window up/down to figure out where the hell you are in your program, because hey, question mark function just doesn't do it!
Concerns about polluting the global namespace are valid, but easily remedied by naming your functions as nodes within your own root object, like "myFooApp.happyFunc = function ( ... ) { ... }; ".
Functions that are available in the global namespace, or as nodes in your root object like above, can be invoked from the debugger directly, during development and debug. E.g., at the console command line, do "myFooApp.happyFunc(42)". This is an extremely powerful ability that does not exist (natively) in compiled programming languages. Try that with an anon func.
Anon funcs can be made more readable by assigning them to a var, and then passing the var as the callback (instead of inlining). E.g.:
var funky = function ( ... ) { ... };
jQuery('#otis').click(funky);
Using the above approach, you could potentially group several anon funcs at the top of the parental func, then below that, the meat of sequential statements becomes much tighter grouped, and easier to read.
Anonymous functions are useful because they help you control which functions are exposed.
More Detail: If there is no name, you can't reassign it or tamper with it anywhere but the exact place it was created. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't need to re-use this function anywhere, it's a good idea to consider if an anonymous function would be better to prevent getting tampered with anywhere.
Example:
If you're working on a big project with a lot of people, what if you have a function inside of a bigger function and you name it something? That means anyone working with you and also editing code in the bigger function can do stuff to that smaller function at any time. What if you named it "add" for instance, and someone reassigned "add" to a number instead inside the same scope? Then the whole thing breaks!
PS -I know this is a very old post, but there is a much simpler answer to this question and I wish someone had put it this way when I was looking for the answer myself as a beginner- I hope you're ok with reviving an old thread!
Its more readable using named functions and they are also capable of self-referencing as in the example below.
(function recursion(iteration){
if (iteration > 0) {
console.log(iteration);
recursion(--iteration);
} else {
console.log('done');
}
})(20);
console.log('recursion defined? ' + (typeof recursion === 'function'));
http://jsfiddle.net/Yq2WD/
This is nice when you want to have an immediately invoked function that references itself but does not add to the global namespace. It's still readable but not polluting. Have your cake and eat it to.
Hi, my name is Jason OR hi, my name is ???? you pick.
Well, just to be clear for the sake of my arguments, the following are all anonymous functions/function expressions in my book:
var x = function(){ alert('hi'); },
indexOfHandyMethods = {
hi: function(){ alert('hi'); },
high: function(){
buyPotatoChips();
playBobMarley();
}
};
someObject.someEventListenerHandlerAssigner( function(e){
if(e.doIt === true){ doStuff(e.someId); }
} );
(function namedButAnon(){ alert('name visible internally only'); })()
Pros:
It can reduce a bit of cruft, particularly in recursive functions (where you could (should actually since arguments.callee is deprecated) still use a named reference per the last example internally), and makes it clear the function only ever fires in this one place.
Code legibility win: in the example of the object literal with anon funcs assigned as methods, it would be silly to add more places to hunt and peck for logic in your code when the whole point of that object literal is to plop some related functionality in the same conveniently referenced spot. When declaring public methods in a constructor, however, I do tend to define labeled functions inline and then assign as references of this.sameFuncName. It lets me use the same methods internally without the 'this.' cruft and makes order of definition a non-concern when they call each other.
Useful for avoiding needless global namespace pollution - internal namespaces, however, shouldn't ever be that broadly filled or handled by multiple teams simultaneously so that argument seems a bit silly to me.
I agree with the inline callbacks when setting short event handlers. It's silly to have to hunt for a 1-5 line function, especially since with JS and function hoisting, the definitions could end up anywhere, not even within the same file. This could happen by accident without breaking anything and no, you don't always have control of that stuff. Events always result in a callback function being fired. There's no reason to add more links to the chain of names you need to scan through just to reverse engineer simple event-handlers in a large codebase and the stack trace concern can be addressed by abstracting event triggers themselves into methods that log useful info when debug mode is on and fire the triggers. I'm actually starting to build entire interfaces this way.
Useful when you WANT the order of function definition to matter. Sometimes you want to be certain a default function is what you think it is until a certain point in the code where it's okay to redefine it. Or you want breakage to be more obvious when dependencies get shuffled.
Cons:
Anon functions can't take advantage of function hoisting. This is a major difference. I tend to take heavy advantage of hoisting to define my own explicitly named funcs and object constructors towards the bottom and get to the object definition and main-loop type stuff right up at the top. I find it makes the code easier to read when you name your vars well and get a broad view of what's going on before ctrl-Fing for details only when they matter to you. Hoisting can also be a huge benefit in heavily event-driven interfaces where imposing a strict order of what's available when can bite you in the butt. Hoisting has its own caveats (like circular reference potential) but it is a very useful tool for organizing and making code legible when used right.
Legibility/Debug. Absolutely they get used way too heavily at times and it can make debug and code legibility a hassle. Codebases that rely heavily on JQ, for instance, can be a serious PITA to read and debug if you don't encapsulate the near-inevitable anon-heavy and massively overloaded args of the $ soup in a sensible way. JQuery's hover method for instance, is a classic example of over-use of anon funcs when you drop two anon funcs into it, since it's easy for a first-timer to assume it's a standard event listener assignment method rather than one method overloaded to assign handlers for one or two events. $(this).hover(onMouseOver, onMouseOut) is a lot more clear than two anon funcs.
(I know some people already asked questions about js profile, but that's not what I need if I understand them correctly.)
I'd like to trace the execution of javascript to collect the information of 1) which function is invoked, 2) the time when the function is invoked, and 3) the execution time of the function.
I want to collect the information online (on deployed code) but not in-house. So, the trade-off has to be light. Also, I don't want to manually add a line before and after where a function is invoked. However, it would be great if there's a way that can dynamically instrument the code.
Thanks in advance!
I don't think that there is any system whereby JavaScript will automatically track the time a function starts and the time a function stops. That is likely something you will have to add yourself. If this is what you need, you may want to consider using PHP to serve up your JavaScript and use a regular expression to find the beginnings and ends of each function with a regex or something like that.
Your RegExp might look like this (completely untested, so you'll have to experiment):
/function [A-Za-z_$][A-Za-z0-9_$]*{(.*?)}/i
Once you have access to the inside of the function, you could replace that value with the function to track its beginning and end wrapped around the original function definition.
This has the benefit of doing exactly what you want, without worrying about modifying how your js code functions. It is then something the server will handle entirely.
Either that or, instead of calling the function directly, use a wrapper function:
function wrapFunction( func, context, argList )
{
// Replace with however you are storing this.
console.log( new Date().getTime() );
func.apply( context, argList );
console.log( new Date().getTime() );
}
This has the benefit of being a lot cleaner than having the server update your JS for you. Unfortunately, it also means having to re-write the JS manually.
My recommendation would be to simply adapt a logging syntax and use that. Most loggers will output a timestamp, a context, a level, and a specific message. If you simply call the logger at the beginning and end of the function, it will do exactly what you're looking for. Further, since many are configurable, you would be able to have it display to the JS console in Firefox, send information to the server, or completely disabled if you so chose.
There are a list of JS loggers here:
JavaScript loggers
This would unfortunately require you to manually update everything, but it seems like the simplest way to get 90% of what you're looking for out of the box.
Perhaps the profiler in FireBug can help you track down slow functions.
Here's a video detailing the profiling options. (Index: 3:20).
console.profile([title])
//also see
console.trace()
http://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/Console_API
The eval function is a powerful and easy way to dynamically generate code, so what are the caveats?
Improper use of eval opens up your
code for injection attacks
Debugging can be more challenging
(no line numbers, etc.)
eval'd code executes slower (no opportunity to compile/cache eval'd code)
Edit: As #Jeff Walden points out in comments, #3 is less true today than it was in 2008. However, while some caching of compiled scripts may happen this will only be limited to scripts that are eval'd repeated with no modification. A more likely scenario is that you are eval'ing scripts that have undergone slight modification each time and as such could not be cached. Let's just say that SOME eval'd code executes more slowly.
eval isn't always evil. There are times where it's perfectly appropriate.
However, eval is currently and historically massively over-used by people who don't know what they're doing. That includes people writing JavaScript tutorials, unfortunately, and in some cases this can indeed have security consequences - or, more often, simple bugs. So the more we can do to throw a question mark over eval, the better. Any time you use eval you need to sanity-check what you're doing, because chances are you could be doing it a better, safer, cleaner way.
To give an all-too-typical example, to set the colour of an element with an id stored in the variable 'potato':
eval('document.' + potato + '.style.color = "red"');
If the authors of the kind of code above had a clue about the basics of how JavaScript objects work, they'd have realised that square brackets can be used instead of literal dot-names, obviating the need for eval:
document[potato].style.color = 'red';
...which is much easier to read as well as less potentially buggy.
(But then, someone who /really/ knew what they were doing would say:
document.getElementById(potato).style.color = 'red';
which is more reliable than the dodgy old trick of accessing DOM elements straight out of the document object.)
I believe it's because it can execute any JavaScript function from a string. Using it makes it easier for people to inject rogue code into the application.
It's generally only an issue if you're passing eval user input.
Two points come to mind:
Security (but as long as you generate the string to be evaluated yourself, this might be a non-issue)
Performance: until the code to be executed is unknown, it cannot be optimized. (about javascript and performance, certainly Steve Yegge's presentation)
Passing user input to eval() is a security risk, but also each invocation of eval() creates a new instance of the JavaScript interpreter. This can be a resource hog.
Mainly, it's a lot harder to maintain and debug. It's like a goto. You can use it, but it makes it harder to find problems and harder on the people who may need to make changes later.
One thing to keep in mind is that you can often use eval() to execute code in an otherwise restricted environment - social networking sites that block specific JavaScript functions can sometimes be fooled by breaking them up in an eval block -
eval('al' + 'er' + 't(\'' + 'hi there!' + '\')');
So if you're looking to run some JavaScript code where it might not otherwise be allowed (Myspace, I'm looking at you...) then eval() can be a useful trick.
However, for all the reasons mentioned above, you shouldn't use it for your own code, where you have complete control - it's just not necessary, and better-off relegated to the 'tricky JavaScript hacks' shelf.
Unless you let eval() a dynamic content (through cgi or input), it is as safe and solid as all other JavaScript in your page.
Along with the rest of the answers, I don't think eval statements can have advanced minimization.
It is a possible security risk, it has a different scope of execution, and is quite inefficient, as it creates an entirely new scripting environment for the execution of the code. See here for some more info: eval.
It is quite useful, though, and used with moderation can add a lot of good functionality.
Unless you are 100% sure that the code being evaluated is from a trusted source (usually your own application) then it's a surefire way of exposing your system to a cross-site scripting attack.
It's not necessarily that bad provided you know what context you're using it in.
If your application is using eval() to create an object from some JSON which has come back from an XMLHttpRequest to your own site, created by your trusted server-side code, it's probably not a problem.
Untrusted client-side JavaScript code can't do that much anyway. Provided the thing you're executing eval() on has come from a reasonable source, you're fine.
It greatly reduces your level of confidence about security.
If you want the user to input some logical functions and evaluate for AND the OR then the JavaScript eval function is perfect. I can accept two strings and eval(uate) string1 === string2, etc.
If you spot the use of eval() in your code, remember the mantra “eval() is evil.”
This
function takes an arbitrary string and executes it as JavaScript code. When the code in
question is known beforehand (not determined at runtime), there’s no reason to use
eval().
If the code is dynamically generated at runtime, there’s often a better way to
achieve the goal without eval().
For example, just using square bracket notation to
access dynamic properties is better and simpler:
// antipattern
var property = "name";
alert(eval("obj." + property));
// preferred
var property = "name";
alert(obj[property]);
Using eval() also has security implications, because you might be executing code (for
example coming from the network) that has been tampered with.
This is a common antipattern when dealing with a JSON response from an Ajax request.
In those cases
it’s better to use the browsers’ built-in methods to parse the JSON response to make
sure it’s safe and valid. For browsers that don’t support JSON.parse() natively, you can
use a library from JSON.org.
It’s also important to remember that passing strings to setInterval(), setTimeout(),
and the Function() constructor is, for the most part, similar to using eval() and therefore
should be avoided.
Behind the scenes, JavaScript still has to evaluate and execute
the string you pass as programming code:
// antipatterns
setTimeout("myFunc()", 1000);
setTimeout("myFunc(1, 2, 3)", 1000);
// preferred
setTimeout(myFunc, 1000);
setTimeout(function () {
myFunc(1, 2, 3);
}, 1000);
Using the new Function() constructor is similar to eval() and should be approached
with care. It could be a powerful construct but is often misused.
If you absolutely must
use eval(), you can consider using new Function() instead.
There is a small potential
benefit because the code evaluated in new Function() will be running in a local function
scope, so any variables defined with var in the code being evaluated will not become
globals automatically.
Another way to prevent automatic globals is to wrap the
eval() call into an immediate function.
EDIT: As Benjie's comment suggests, this no longer seems to be the case in chrome v108, it would seem that chrome can now handle garbage collection of evaled scripts.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Garbage collection
The browsers garbage collection has no idea if the code that's eval'ed can be removed from memory so it just keeps it stored until the page is reloaded.
Not too bad if your users are only on your page shortly, but it can be a problem for webapp's.
Here's a script to demo the problem
https://jsfiddle.net/CynderRnAsh/qux1osnw/
document.getElementById("evalLeak").onclick = (e) => {
for(let x = 0; x < 100; x++) {
eval(x.toString());
}
};
Something as simple as the above code causes a small amount of memory to be store until the app dies.
This is worse when the evaled script is a giant function, and called on interval.
Besides the possible security issues if you are executing user-submitted code, most of the time there's a better way that doesn't involve re-parsing the code every time it's executed. Anonymous functions or object properties can replace most uses of eval and are much safer and faster.
This may become more of an issue as the next generation of browsers come out with some flavor of a JavaScript compiler. Code executed via Eval may not perform as well as the rest of your JavaScript against these newer browsers. Someone should do some profiling.
This is one of good articles talking about eval and how it is not an evil:
http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2013/06/25/eval-isnt-evil-just-misunderstood/
I’m not saying you should go run out and start using eval()
everywhere. In fact, there are very few good use cases for running
eval() at all. There are definitely concerns with code clarity,
debugability, and certainly performance that should not be overlooked.
But you shouldn’t be afraid to use it when you have a case where
eval() makes sense. Try not using it first, but don’t let anyone scare
you into thinking your code is more fragile or less secure when eval()
is used appropriately.
eval() is very powerful and can be used to execute a JS statement or evaluate an expression. But the question isn't about the uses of eval() but lets just say some how the string you running with eval() is affected by a malicious party. At the end you will be running malicious code. With power comes great responsibility. So use it wisely is you are using it.
This isn't related much to eval() function but this article has pretty good information:
http://blogs.popart.com/2009/07/javascript-injection-attacks/
If you are looking for the basics of eval() look here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/eval
The JavaScript Engine has a number of performance optimizations that it performs during the compilation phase. Some of these boil down to being able to essentially statically analyze the code as it lexes, and pre-determine where all the variable and function declarations are, so that it takes less effort to resolve identifiers during execution.
But if the Engine finds an eval(..) in the code, it essentially has to assume that all its awareness of identifier location may be invalid, because it cannot know at lexing time exactly what code you may pass to eval(..) to modify the lexical scope, or the contents of the object you may pass to with to create a new lexical scope to be consulted.
In other words, in the pessimistic sense, most of those optimizations it would make are pointless if eval(..) is present, so it simply doesn't perform the optimizations at all.
This explains it all.
Reference :
https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/scope%20&%20closures/ch2.md#eval
https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/scope%20&%20closures/ch2.md#performance
It's not always a bad idea. Take for example, code generation. I recently wrote a library called Hyperbars which bridges the gap between virtual-dom and handlebars. It does this by parsing a handlebars template and converting it to hyperscript which is subsequently used by virtual-dom. The hyperscript is generated as a string first and before returning it, eval() it to turn it into executable code. I have found eval() in this particular situation the exact opposite of evil.
Basically from
<div>
{{#each names}}
<span>{{this}}</span>
{{/each}}
</div>
To this
(function (state) {
var Runtime = Hyperbars.Runtime;
var context = state;
return h('div', {}, [Runtime.each(context['names'], context, function (context, parent, options) {
return [h('span', {}, [options['#index'], context])]
})])
}.bind({}))
The performance of eval() isn't an issue in a situation like this because you only need to interpret the generated string once and then reuse the executable output many times over.
You can see how the code generation was achieved if you're curious here.
I would go as far as to say that it doesn't really matter if you use eval() in javascript which is run in browsers.*(caveat)
All modern browsers have a developer console where you can execute arbitrary javascript anyway and any semi-smart developer can look at your JS source and put whatever bits of it they need to into the dev console to do what they wish.
*As long as your server endpoints have the correct validation & sanitisation of user supplied values, it should not matter what gets parsed and eval'd in your client side javascript.
If you were to ask if it's suitable to use eval() in PHP however, the answer is NO, unless you whitelist any values which may be passed to your eval statement.
I won't attempt to refute anything said heretofore, but i will offer this use of eval() that (as far as I know) can't be done any other way. There's probably other ways to code this, and probably ways to optimize it, but this is done longhand and without any bells and whistles for clarity sake to illustrate a use of eval that really doesn't have any other alternatives. That is: dynamical (or more accurately) programmically-created object names (as opposed to values).
//Place this in a common/global JS lib:
var NS = function(namespace){
var namespaceParts = String(namespace).split(".");
var namespaceToTest = "";
for(var i = 0; i < namespaceParts.length; i++){
if(i === 0){
namespaceToTest = namespaceParts[i];
}
else{
namespaceToTest = namespaceToTest + "." + namespaceParts[i];
}
if(eval('typeof ' + namespaceToTest) === "undefined"){
eval(namespaceToTest + ' = {}');
}
}
return eval(namespace);
}
//Then, use this in your class definition libs:
NS('Root.Namespace').Class = function(settings){
//Class constructor code here
}
//some generic method:
Root.Namespace.Class.prototype.Method = function(args){
//Code goes here
//this.MyOtherMethod("foo")); // => "foo"
return true;
}
//Then, in your applications, use this to instantiate an instance of your class:
var anInstanceOfClass = new Root.Namespace.Class(settings);
EDIT: by the way, I wouldn't suggest (for all the security reasons pointed out heretofore) that you base you object names on user input. I can't imagine any good reason you'd want to do that though. Still, thought I'd point it out that it wouldn't be a good idea :)