Benchmark: parseInt-vs-math.floor

Tests:

parseInt
parseInt((new Date()).getMinutes()/10.0)
Math.floor
Math.floor((new Date()).getMinutes()/10.0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
Math.floor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 17 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseInt	10889864.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor	10861740.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two built-in JavaScript functions: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. Both tests aim to calculate the minutes component of a new Date object divided by 10.0. The main question being answered here is which function is faster.

**Options compared:**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`parseInt`**: The `parseInt()` function takes a string as an argument and returns its integer value after parsing the string according to a radix (base) number.
2. **`Math.floor`**: The `Math.floor()` function returns the largest (closest to negative infinity) integer less than or equal to the given number.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`parseInt`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for certain inputs, as it only needs to parse a single value.
		+ May be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with parsing numbers from strings.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an explicit radix argument, which can add complexity and error-prone code.
		+ May perform poorly on inputs that require multiple parses (e.g., string concatenation).
2. **`Math.floor`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation, making it easier to understand and maintain.
		+ Does not require an explicit radix argument, reducing complexity and potential errors.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for certain inputs due to the need to perform floating-point arithmetic.

**Library or special feature:**

None of the provided test cases uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that both functions rely on JavaScript's built-in support for dates and arithmetic operations.

**Special JS feature:**

The tests do not use any special JavaScript features beyond the standard `Date` object and basic arithmetic operations.

**Other alternatives:**

For comparing performance between two functions or methods, other approaches might include:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js or Microbench can provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities, including support for multiple test cases and visualization of results.
2. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Some JavaScript engines, like SpiderMonkey in Firefox or V8 in Chrome, use JIT compilation to optimize performance-critical code. Testing the performance of specific functions or methods within these engines can provide more accurate results.

In summary, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two fundamental JavaScript functions: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. The choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, including factors like readability, maintainability, and performance optimization.

Related benchmarks:

parseInt-vs-math.floor (version: 0)

Check the impact between the two

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs Math.floor

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

Math.floor

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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