Benchmark: toLocaleString vs window.Intl.NumberFormat

Tests:

toLocaleString
let a = (1999.99991929393432432).toLocaleString("en",{minimumFractionDigits:9, maximumFractionDigits:9,useGrouping: false});
window.Intl.NumberFormat
const numberFormatter = new window.Intl.NumberFormat("en", { minimumFractionDigits: 9, maximumFractionDigits: 9, useGrouping: false }); let a = numberFormatter.format(1999.99991929393432432);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toLocaleString
window.Intl.NumberFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to format a decimal number: `toLocaleString` (a built-in JavaScript method) and `window.Intl.NumberFormat` (an internationalization API).

**Options being compared:**

1. **toLocaleString**: This method formats a number in the specified locale, with options for minimum fraction digits, maximum fraction digits, and whether to use grouping.
2. **window.Intl.NumberFormat**: This is an internationalization API that allows you to format numbers according to a specific locale, with options for formatting rules.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **toLocaleString**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and easy to use.
		+ Formats numbers according to the system's locale settings.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited control over formatting options.
		+ May not produce consistent results across different browsers or locales.
2. **window.Intl.NumberFormat**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides more control over formatting options (e.g., currency symbols, decimal separators).
		+ Can be used to format numbers according to a specific locale.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and harder to use than `toLocaleString`.
		+ May require additional setup for internationalization support.

**Library used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `window.Intl` is an internationalization API provided by WebKit (used by Safari) and Chrome. The YaBrowser browser being tested may have its own implementation of `Intl.NumberFormat`.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No specific JavaScript features or syntax are being used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need more control over formatting options, you could consider using:

* **Mathjs**: A library for mathematical expressions and operations.
* **moment.js**: A popular date and time library that provides formatting options.
* **xlsx**: A library for working with spreadsheets (e.g., formatting numbers).

However, these alternatives might not be necessary for simple number formatting tasks.

In summary, the benchmark is testing two approaches to format decimal numbers: `toLocaleString` and `window.Intl.NumberFormat`. While `toLocaleString` is lightweight and easy to use, it may not provide enough control over formatting options. The `Intl.NumberFormat` API offers more flexibility but requires additional setup for internationalization support.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.6.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 24 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toLocaleString	129969.3 Ops/sec
window.Intl.NumberFormat	125438.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toLocaleString vs window.Intl.NumberFormat (version: 0)

toLocaleString vs window.Intl.NumberFormat

Comparing performance of: toLocaleString vs window.Intl.NumberFormat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toLocaleString

window.Intl.NumberFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):