var value = 1234567.89;
var numberFormat = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 });
(new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 })).format(value);
numberFormat.format(value);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
New NumberFormat | |
Existing NumberFormat |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
New NumberFormat | 22265.8 Ops/sec |
Existing NumberFormat | 896656.1 Ops/sec |
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:
Intl.NumberFormat
): This approach uses the Internationalization API, which provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings.Pros and Cons of each approach:
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:
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.