var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US").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 | 91473.3 Ops/sec |
toLocalString | 43648188.0 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.
What is being tested?
The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test case that compares two approaches for formatting numbers: Intl.NumberFormat
and the toLocaleString
method. The test aims to measure which approach is faster and more efficient.
Options compared
Two options are being compared:
toLocaleString
interface, which returns a string representation of a number in the specified locale.Pros and cons of each approach
toLocaleString
due to its more complex implementation.Library usage
In the provided test case, the Intl
library is used for the Intl.NumberFormat approach. The Intl
library provides a set of APIs for internationalization and localization, allowing developers to work with different languages, scripts, and number formats in their applications.
Special JavaScript feature or syntax
There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmarking test case. However, it's worth noting that the use of Intl
library and its methods can be considered a modern JavaScript feature.
Other alternatives
If you're looking for alternative approaches to formatting numbers in JavaScript, here are a few options:
Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same level of flexibility or performance as Intl.NumberFormat, but they can be useful for simple use cases or when working with legacy browsers that don't support the Intl library.