Benchmark: New NumberFormat vs ExistingNumberFormat

Script Preparation code:

var value = 1234567.89;
var numberFormat = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 });

Tests:

New NumberFormat
(new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 })).format(value);
Existing NumberFormat
numberFormat.format(value);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
New NumberFormat
Existing NumberFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to formatting numbers: `Intl.NumberFormat` (new) and an existing implementation (assuming this is a custom or legacy code).

**Options compared:**

1. **New NumberFormat (`Intl.NumberFormat`)**: This approach uses the Internationalization API, which provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings.
2. **Existing NumberFormat**: This is likely a custom or legacy implementation that may not follow standard guidelines or best practices.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat (New)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Follows internationalization standards, ensuring accurate formatting for different locales.
		+ Provides a standardized way to format numbers, making it easier to maintain and update code.
		+ Often more efficient and concise than custom implementations.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional setup or configuration to work properly.
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of internationalization processing.
2. **Existing NumberFormat**:
	* Pros:
		+ May be faster due to reduced overhead from internationalization processing.
		+ Can be more familiar and easier to maintain for developers who already know the custom implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ Lacks standardization, making it harder to maintain and update code across different locales.
		+ May not provide accurate formatting for all locale settings.

**Library:**

The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is a part of the JavaScript API, specifically designed for internationalization. It provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There isn't any explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. However, the use of `Intl.NumberFormat` does rely on some language-specific features and APIs that may not be widely supported across all browsers or environments.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to formatting numbers, you might consider:

1. **Number formatting libraries**: There are many third-party libraries available that provide number formatting capabilities, such as moment.js, numeral.js, or custom solutions like jQuery NumberFormatter.
2. **Locale-specific formatting functions**: Depending on your specific use case, you might need to rely on locale-specific formatting functions provided by the browser's API (e.g., `navigator.language`) or a library like i18n.js.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice ultimately depends on your project's requirements, performance constraints, and development team's expertise.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
New NumberFormat	22265.8 Ops/sec
Existing NumberFormat	896656.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

New NumberFormat vs ExistingNumberFormat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: New NumberFormat vs Existing NumberFormat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

New NumberFormat

Existing NumberFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 days ago):