Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
New NumberFormat vs ExistingNumberFormat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
New NumberFormat vs Existing NumberFormat
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var value = 1234567.89; var numberFormat = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 });
Tests:
New NumberFormat
(new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { style: 'percent', maximumFractionDigits: 2 })).format(value);
Existing NumberFormat
numberFormat.format(value);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
New NumberFormat
Existing NumberFormat
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to formatting numbers: `Intl.NumberFormat` (new) and an existing implementation (assuming this is a custom or legacy code). **Options compared:** 1. **New NumberFormat (`Intl.NumberFormat`)**: This approach uses the Internationalization API, which provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings. 2. **Existing NumberFormat**: This is likely a custom or legacy implementation that may not follow standard guidelines or best practices. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Intl.NumberFormat (New)**: * Pros: + Follows internationalization standards, ensuring accurate formatting for different locales. + Provides a standardized way to format numbers, making it easier to maintain and update code. + Often more efficient and concise than custom implementations. * Cons: + May require additional setup or configuration to work properly. + Can be slower due to the overhead of internationalization processing. 2. **Existing NumberFormat**: * Pros: + May be faster due to reduced overhead from internationalization processing. + Can be more familiar and easier to maintain for developers who already know the custom implementation. * Cons: + Lacks standardization, making it harder to maintain and update code across different locales. + May not provide accurate formatting for all locale settings. **Library:** The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is a part of the JavaScript API, specifically designed for internationalization. It provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There isn't any explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. However, the use of `Intl.NumberFormat` does rely on some language-specific features and APIs that may not be widely supported across all browsers or environments. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative approaches to formatting numbers, you might consider: 1. **Number formatting libraries**: There are many third-party libraries available that provide number formatting capabilities, such as moment.js, numeral.js, or custom solutions like jQuery NumberFormatter. 2. **Locale-specific formatting functions**: Depending on your specific use case, you might need to rely on locale-specific formatting functions provided by the browser's API (e.g., `navigator.language`) or a library like i18n.js. Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice ultimately depends on your project's requirements, performance constraints, and development team's expertise.
Related benchmarks:
Number format
new Intl.NumberFormat vs reused NumberFormat
new Intl.NumberFormat vs reused NumberFormat reformatted
Intl.NumberFormat vs manual
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?