Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
parseFloat for me
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number.parseFloat vs parseFloat
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Number.parseFloat
Number.parseFloat('10%')
parseFloat
parseFloat('10%')
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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The benchmark consists of two test cases: 1. `Number.parseFloat('10%')` 2. `parseFloat('10%')` Both tests are designed to measure the performance of parsing a string containing a percentage value. **Options compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: A) Using the built-in `Number.parseFloat()` function B) Using the non-standard `parseFloat()` function (which is not supported by all browsers) **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **`Number.parseFloat()`**: This function is a part of the ECMAScript standard and provides a more robust way to parse decimal numbers, including percentages. It's also less prone to errors caused by non-standard input formats. * Pros: + More reliable for parsing decimal numbers + Less error-prone * Cons: Not supported by older browsers that only have the `parseFloat()` function 2. **`parseFloat()`**: This is a non-standard function that was introduced as an extension to the ECMAScript standard, but it's not part of the core language. It's also more vulnerable to errors caused by non-standard input formats. * Pros: None * Cons: + Less reliable for parsing decimal numbers + More error-prone **Other considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your application: * If you need robust parsing of decimal numbers, including percentages, use `Number.parseFloat()`. * If you're targeting older browsers that only support `parseFloat()`, and you're okay with a less reliable solution, use `parseFloat()`. **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash provide functions for parsing decimal numbers, including percentages. **Special JS features or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing two basic functions: `Number.parseFloat()` and `parseFloat()`.
Related benchmarks:
Add using Decimal.js vs native vs Number() vs parseFloat()
Float string optimization: parseFloat() vs regex, full version
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?