Benchmark: Implicit vs parseInt vs Number string to num

Script Preparation code:

var strNum = '6969699'

Tests:

implicit
var imp = + strNum
parseInt
var toStr = parseInt(strNum)
Number
var num = Number(strNum)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
implicit
parseInt
Number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and its components to help explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, containing three main elements:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "Implicit vs parseInt vs Number string to num".
2. **Script Preparation Code**: A JavaScript code snippet that sets up a variable `strNum` with the value "6969699".
3. **Html Preparation Code**: An empty string, indicating no HTML preparation is needed for this benchmark.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. **Implicit**: The first test case uses the implicit conversion operator (`+`) to convert the `strNum` variable to a number.
2. **parseInt**: The second test case uses the `parseInt()` function to convert the `strNum` variable to an integer.
3. **Number**: The third test case uses the `Number()` function to convert the `strNum` variable to a number.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is testing how each of these three methods compares in terms of performance:

* Implicit conversion (`+`)
* `parseInt()`
* `Number()` (also known as unary plus)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Implicit Conversion (`+`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and concise
		+ Fast, as it's a built-in operator
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly for all numeric representations (e.g., scientific notation)
2. **parseInt()**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible than implicit conversion, handling various numeric formats
		+ Can be used to extract specific parts of a number string
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than implicit conversion due to function call overhead
3. **Number()**
	* Pros:
		+ Similar performance to implicit conversion
		+ Can handle scientific notation and other advanced numeric formats
	* Cons:
		+ Less intuitive and less widely used than implicit conversion

**Library**

None of the test cases rely on external libraries, as all operations are built-in JavaScript functions or operators.

**Special JS Features**

None of the features tested in this benchmark require any special JavaScript syntax or features. They only use standard built-in methods and operators.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in alternative approaches to converting a string to a number, consider:

1. **Regular Expressions**: Using regular expressions can provide more control over numeric format handling.
2. **Decimal.js**: A library specifically designed for decimal arithmetic and conversion between strings and numbers.
3. **Intl.NumberFormat**: Part of the modern JavaScript standard, this API provides a way to handle locale-dependent number formatting.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be relevant to the specific use case or performance testing scenario represented by this benchmark.

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/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
implicit	25850866.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	7970199.0 Ops/sec
Number	9947632.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Implicit vs parseInt vs Number string to num (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: implicit vs parseInt vs Number

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

implicit

parseInt

Number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):