Benchmark: parse integer - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

parseInt
return parseInt(78.5 + "", 10)
bitwise or
return 78.5 + "" | 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
bitwise or

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents the benchmark definition, which includes the following information:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark, "parse integer".
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark, comparing native `parseInt` with bitwise OR.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty, indicating that no special script or HTML preparation is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`return parseInt(78.5 + \"\", 10)`**: This test case measures the performance of native `parseInt`.
2. **`return 78.5 + \"\" | 0`**: This test case measures the performance of bitwise OR (`|`) with a zero value.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the following options:

* Native `parseInt`: A built-in JavaScript function that converts a string to an integer.
* Bitwise OR (`|`): A binary operator that performs a bit-wise OR operation on its operands.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native `parseInt`**:
	* Pros: Widely supported, efficient, and well-optimized by most JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: May have performance issues with certain input types or edge cases.
2. **Bitwise OR (`|`) with zero value**:
	* Pros: Simple, lightweight, and can be faster for certain inputs (e.g., integers).
	* Cons: May not work as expected with non-integer values, and some JavaScript engines might optimize it differently.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library. However, if we assume that `parseInt` is implemented using a standard JavaScript library or engine-specific optimization, then no additional libraries are required.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic syntax for defining functions and performing arithmetic operations.

**Other Alternatives**

To measure the performance of other approaches, you might consider adding more test cases, such as:

* Using a different string formatting method (e.g., template literals)
* Comparing with other integer conversion methods (e.g., `Number()`, `BigInt()`)

Keep in mind that these alternatives should be carefully evaluated to ensure they accurately represent the use cases and performance characteristics being measured.

When preparing more test cases, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Input types and edge cases
* Performance optimizations used by different JavaScript engines or libraries
* The trade-offs between simplicity, readability, and performance

By expanding the benchmark and considering these factors, you can gain a deeper understanding of the performance characteristics of various JavaScript approaches.

Related benchmarks:

parse integer (version: 2)

Compare native parseInt with bitwise or

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs bitwise or

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

bitwise or

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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