var formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US")
var a = formatter.format("10000");
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Intl.NumberFormat | |
toLocalString |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Intl.NumberFormat | 3746106.0 Ops/sec |
toLocalString | 28935286.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Purpose: The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for formatting numbers:
Intl.NumberFormat
API, which creates a cached instance of the formatter and then uses it.toLocaleString()
method directly on the number string.Options Compared:
Intl.NumberFormat
, caching its configuration (locale, currency, etc.).toLocaleString()
.Pros and Cons:
Library/ API Used:
The Intl.NumberFormat
API is a part of the Internationalization (i18n) API in JavaScript, which provides a way to format numbers according to the user's locale. The toLocaleString()
method is also part of this API, but it's used differently here as a standalone formatting function.
Special JS Feature/Syntax: There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing two different approaches for formatting numbers.
Other Alternatives: If you need more control over the formatting process, you could also consider using libraries like:
moment.js
(for date and time formatting) numeral.js
(for formatting numbers with precision control)formatjs
(a comprehensive library for internationalization and localization)These alternatives might offer additional features or customization options not available in the built-in Intl.NumberFormat
API.
Overall, this benchmark is designed to help developers understand the trade-offs between caching instance creation and direct method usage when it comes to formatting numbers. By comparing these two approaches, you can make informed decisions about which method best suits your specific use case.