var formater = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US");
var a = formater.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 | 2327953.8 Ops/sec |
toLocalString | 26088404.0 Ops/sec |
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.
What is tested:
The provided benchmark compares two JavaScript methods for formatting numbers:
Intl.NumberFormat
: This method uses the Internationalization API (Intl) to format numbers according to the locale and style specified in the constructor.toLocalString
: This method is part of the DOM API (specifically, the Number
object) and formats a number as a string in the locale's default format.Options compared:
The benchmark compares two options:
A) Using Intl.NumberFormat
with a specific locale (en-US
) and style (decimal
).
B) Using the toLocalString
method without specifying any locale or style.
Pros and Cons of each approach:
Option A (Intl.NumberFormat):
Pros:
Cons:
Option B (toLocalString):
Pros:
Cons:
Other considerations:
Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. When dealing with simple numbers, toLocalString
might be a better choice due to its speed advantage. However, when handling more complex formatting requirements or requiring internationalization, Intl.NumberFormat
is likely the better option.
Library/Libraries mentioned:
The benchmark uses two libraries:
No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this benchmark.
Other alternatives:
If not using Intl.NumberFormat
, alternative methods might include:
NumberFormat
method from a third-party library, such as Moment.js or numbro.Intl.NumberFormat
API in Safari.Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and limitations compared to the original benchmark.