Benchmark: Intl vs native - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Intl
new Intl.NumberFormat('en-US', { style: 'decimal', minimumFractionDigits: 0, maximumFractionDigits: 3, }).format('100000.234')
String
const value = '100000.234'; // fix for rounding issues, see Mozilla docs on method toFixed() const normalizedValue = value * 10 ** 3; const formattedValue = normalizedValue.toFixed(0); return +formattedValue / 10 ** 3;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to format a decimal number:

1. **Intl**: Using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API to format a decimal number with specific settings (style, minimum fraction digits, maximum fraction digits).
2. **String**: Manually formatting a decimal number using string manipulation and rounding.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is testing two options:

* **Intl**: Uses the built-in `Intl.NumberFormat` API to perform the formatting.
* **String**: Manually performs the formatting using string manipulation and rounding.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Intl:**

Pros:

* Faster execution times, as it uses optimized code for formatting numbers.
* Less prone to human error, as the formatting is done by a standardized API.

Cons:

* May not work correctly with all edge cases or non-standard formatting requirements.
* Can be slower in certain browsers due to overhead of JavaScript functions.

**String:**

Pros:

* More control over the formatting process, allowing for customization and flexibility.
* May perform better in older browsers that don't have access to Intl API.

Cons:

* Slower execution times, as it involves manual string manipulation and rounding.
* Prone to human error, if not implemented correctly.

**Library Used**

In the provided benchmark, the `Intl` option uses the `Intl.NumberFormat` library. This library is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API, which provides a standardized way to format numbers according to locale and culture.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript features (string manipulation, loops, conditionals).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider:

* **Decimal.js**: A library for precise decimal arithmetic, which can be used for formatting numbers with high precision.
* **Numeral.js**: A lightweight library for formatting numbers, which provides a simple and efficient way to format numbers according to locale and culture.
* **Using `toString()` and `+` operators**: Another approach to manually format numbers using string concatenation and arithmetic operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, pros, and cons compared to the Intl API or manual string manipulation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36 Edg/97.0.1072.69

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl	20268.1 Ops/sec
String	2543998.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl vs String

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):