Benchmark: Number round - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a = 13.3432432534

Tests:

Math.floor(a)
Math.floor(a)
~~
~~a
^0
a^0
parseInt
parseInt(a)
toFixed
+a.toFixed()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.floor(a)
~~
^0
parseInt
toFixed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/82.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 82 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.floor(a)	132864848.0 Ops/sec
~~	271783040.0 Ops/sec
^0	281271712.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	53880724.0 Ops/sec
toFixed	12475700.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and individual test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the benchmark, including:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark (not filled in this case)
* `Script Preparation Code`: The JavaScript code used to prepare the input value (`a`) before running the benchmark
* `Html Preparation Code`: Optional HTML code that may be used to set up the environment for the benchmark (not used in this case)

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases are an array of objects, each representing a specific test case. Each test case has:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A string containing the JavaScript expression that is being tested
* `Test Name`: The name given to the test case

Here's a breakdown of each test case:

1. `Math.floor(a)`: Tests the behavior of the `Math.floor()` function, which returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value.
2. `~~a` (bitwise NOT): Tests the behavior of the bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) on the input value. This operator performs a bit-by-bit inversion of the binary representation of the number.
3. `a^0`: Tests the behavior of exponentiation with a base of 1 and an exponent of 0 (i.e., `1 ^ 0`).
4. `parseInt(a)`: Tests the behavior of the `parseInt()` function, which converts a string to an integer.
5. `+a.toFixed()`: Tests the behavior of converting the input value to a string using `toFixed()` and then adding it to itself.

**Library Usage**

The only library used in this benchmark is none explicitly mentioned, however some libraries are implied by the usage of methods like Math.floor() which is part of JavaScript standard libraries. It does not include other libraries typically used for testing purposes.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, as all expressions use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Math.floor(a)**: This approach tests the behavior of a simple mathematical function. Pros: easy to implement and understand. Cons: may not be representative of real-world usage.
2. **~~a (bitwise NOT)**: This approach tests the behavior of a bitwise operator, which can be slower than other methods. Pros: tests bit-level operations, which are essential in many algorithms. Cons: may be less intuitive for developers without prior experience with bitwise operators.
3. **a^0**: This approach tests the behavior of exponentiation with a base of 1 and an exponent of 0. Pros: simple and easy to understand. Cons: this test case is more about testing the language's handling of exponentiation rather than any specific algorithm or real-world usage.
4. **parseInt(a)**: This approach tests the behavior of a function that converts a string to an integer. Pros: useful for testing input validation and parsing logic. Cons: may not be representative of all scenarios where `parseInt()` is used.
5. **+a.toFixed()**: This approach tests the behavior of converting a number to a string using `toFixed()` and then adding it to itself. Pros: tests formatting and conversion logic. Cons: may be less relevant for performance-critical code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test similar benchmarks, you might consider:

1. Testing other mathematical functions like `ceil()`, `trunc()`, or `abs()`.
2. Using different libraries or frameworks to test compatibility and performance.
3. Testing more complex algorithms or data structures like arrays, objects, or linked lists.
4. Focusing on specific scenarios like input validation, parsing, formatting, or rounding numbers.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmark depends on your goals, target audience, and the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Number round (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.floor(a) vs ~~ vs ^0 vs parseInt vs toFixed

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor(a)

~~

^0

parseInt

toFixed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):