Benchmark: string to ~~ vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat

Script Preparation code:

var strA = "420343343242";
var strB = "420343343243";

Tests:

notnot
var res = ~~strA;
parseInt
var res = parseInt(strA);
Number
var res = Number(strA);
parseFloat
var res = parseFloat(strA);
+0
var res = strA + 0;
*1
var res = strA * 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
notnot
parseInt
Number
parseFloat
+0
*1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3424.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

58.4M/s

Number

12.8M/s

parseFloat

12.2M/s

notnot

11.6M/s

11.5M/s

parseInt

11.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ +0	58,383,696 Ops/sec
Number	12,815,059 Ops/sec
parseFloat	12,190,699 Ops/sec
notnot	11,566,574 Ops/sec
*1	11,450,324 Ops/sec
parseInt	11,275,415 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different JavaScript operations on string values: `~~`, `parseInt`, `Number`, and `parseFloat`. The goal is to determine which operation is the fastest.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Explanation**

The benchmark definition JSON contains four key pieces of information:

1. **Name**: A unique identifier for the benchmark.
2. **Description**: An optional description of the benchmark, which is empty in this case.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: A script that sets up the variables used in the benchmark. In this case, two string variables `strA` and `strB` are defined with values "420343343242" and "420343343243", respectively.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: An optional HTML code to prepare for the benchmark, which is empty in this case.

**Test Cases Explanation**

The test cases section defines six different tests:

1. **~~ strA**: Tests the bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) on `strA`.
2. **parseInt strA**: Tests the `parseInt` function on `strA`.
3. **Number strA**: Tests the `Number` function on `strA`.
4. **parseFloat strA**: Tests the `parseFloat` function on `strA`.
5. **+0**: Tests adding 0 to `strA`, which should have no effect.
6. ***1**: Tests multiplying 1 with `strA`, which should also have no effect.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library or any special JavaScript features beyond the standard operators (`~~`, `parseInt`, `Number`, and `parseFloat`). The only notable aspect is that the `~~` operator is an unusual one, as it's not commonly used in modern JavaScript development.

**Approaches and Pros/Cons**

The benchmark compares the performance of different approaches to perform arithmetic operations on strings:

1. **`~~ strA`**: Uses a bitwise NOT operation, which can be fast but has limitations (e.g., it returns -0 for NaN values).
	* Pros: Fast, simple.
	* Cons: Limited range, may return incorrect results for NaN values.
2. **`parseInt strA`**: Uses the `parseInt` function to parse the string as an integer.
	* Pros: Robust, handles NaN and other edge cases.
	* Cons: May be slower than bitwise NOT due to additional overhead.
3. **`Number strA`**: Uses the `Number` function to convert the string to a number.
	* Pros: Simple, handles NaN values correctly.
	* Cons: May be slower than bitwise NOT due to additional overhead.
4. **`parseFloat strA`**: Uses the `parseFloat` function to parse the string as a floating-point number.
	* Pros: Handles decimal points and other edge cases.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches due to additional overhead.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to benchmark alternative approaches, you could consider:

1. **Regex-based solutions**: Using regular expressions to extract numerical values from the string.
2. **String manipulation functions**: Utilizing built-in string manipulation functions like `replace`, `match`, or `split`.
3. **Custom parsing algorithms**: Developing custom parsing algorithms for specific use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or straightforward as the original approaches, and their performance may vary depending on the specific requirements of your use case.

string to ~~ vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `notnot vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat vs +0 vs *1`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

notnot

parseInt

Number

parseFloat

+0

*1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

string to ~~ vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: notnot vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat vs +0 vs *1

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

notnot

parseInt

Number

parseFloat

+0

*1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `notnot vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat vs +0 vs *1`