Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
parseFloat vs Number.parseFloat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number.parseFloat vs parseFloat
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Number.parseFloat
let parse = Number.parseFloat(Math.random().toString());
parseFloat
let parse = parseFloat(Math.random().toString());
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Number.parseFloat
parseFloat
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript functions: `Number.parseFloat` and `parseFloat`. Both functions are used to parse a string representing a floating-point number. The test creates a random string using `Math.random().toString()` and assigns it to a variable, then uses one of the two functions to parse that string. **Options being compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **`Number.parseFloat`**: This function is part of the JavaScript standard library and was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES2020). It's designed to provide a more efficient and robust way to parse floating-point numbers from strings. 2. **`parseFloat`**: This is an older, built-in JavaScript function that has been around since ES5. While it's still widely used, it's known for being slower and less reliable than `Number.parseFloat`. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * `Number.parseFloat`: * Pros: More efficient, more robust, and designed specifically for parsing floating-point numbers. * Cons: Only available in modern browsers (and Node.js) that support ES2020, so may not work in older environments. * `parseFloat`: * Pros: Widely supported across older browsers and environments, but slightly slower and less reliable than `Number.parseFloat`. * Cons: May not handle edge cases as well as `Number.parseFloat`, leading to potential errors or unexpected behavior. **Other considerations** When working with floating-point numbers in JavaScript, it's essential to be aware of the limitations and nuances of these functions. For example: * Floating-point arithmetic can introduce rounding errors due to binary representation. * Some browsers may have different implementations for `Number.parseFloat` and `parseFloat`, leading to variations in performance. **Library usage** In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used besides the standard JavaScript library (ES2020). However, if you were to use a library like `mathjs` or `corelib` that provides optimized floating-point arithmetic functions, it could potentially impact the results of this benchmark. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two built-in functions. Now, if you want to run this benchmark yourself, you can create an HTML file with the provided script preparation code and run it using a compatible browser or Node.js environment that supports ES2020. MeasureThat.net will provide you with the same results as they did for this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Float string optimization: parseFloat() vs regex, full version
Number vs + vs parseFloat 23
string to number convert
Number vs + vs parseFloat + properties px
Number vs + vs parseFloat v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?