Benchmark: parseInt(stringInt) vs +stringInt

Tests:

parseInt(str);
const str = "1234567890"; console.log(parseInt(str));
+"124";
const str = "1234567890"; console.log(+str);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt(str);
+"124";

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript code snippet that compares two approaches:

1. `parseInt(stringInt)`
2. `+stringInt`

In this case, both approaches are applied to the same string input: `"1234567890"`.

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance of these two approaches. The test aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient for converting a string to an integer using either JavaScript's built-in `parseInt` function or unary plus (`+`).

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `parseInt(stringInt)`: This approach uses the `parseInt` function from JavaScript's standard library, which parses a string and returns an integer value.
2. `+stringInt`: This approach uses unary plus, which converts the entire input string to a number.

**Pros/Cons of each approach**

* `parseInt(stringInt)`:
	+ Pros: More explicit and readable code, as it clearly states the intention of parsing a string to an integer.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to additional overhead for string parsing and function call.
* `+stringInt`:
	+ Pros: Faster execution, as it avoids the extra overhead of function calls and directly converts the input string to a number.
	+ Cons: Less readable code, as it's not immediately clear that the entire input string is being converted.

**Library Used**

There isn't a specific library being used in this benchmark. However, `parseInt` is a built-in JavaScript function, which means no external dependencies are required.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used beyond the standard `parseInt` and unary plus functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, here are a few options:

* Using a library like ` numeral.js`, which provides a more robust and efficient way of converting strings to numbers.
* Implementing a custom string-to-number conversion function using regular expressions or other techniques.
* Using a different approach, such as parsing the input string manually by iterating through each character and calculating its corresponding numerical value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide significant performance benefits over the built-in `parseInt` function and unary plus approaches.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON doesn't contain any script preparation code. This is likely because the benchmark is designed to be minimal and focus on comparing two specific JavaScript expressions.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are only two test cases in this benchmark:

1. Testing `parseInt(str);`
2. Testing `+\"124\);`

These test cases cover the basic usage of both approaches, with the same input string being used for both tests.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of two commonly used JavaScript expressions: `parseInt` and unary plus.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/98.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 98 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseInt(str);	16346.0 Ops/sec
+"124";	16425.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parseInt(stringInt) vs +stringInt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parseInt(str); vs +"124";

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseInt(str);

+"124";

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):