Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString rev.2

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("ru-RU", { minimumFractionDigits: 1, maximumFractionDigits: 1, }).format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = (10000).toLocaleString("ru-RU", { minimumFractionDigits: 1, maximumFractionDigits: 1, });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	66826.4 Ops/sec
toLocalString	69399.5 Ops/sec

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The current benchmark compares two approaches for formatting numbers: `Intl.NumberFormat` and `toLocaleString`. The goal is to determine which method is faster, more efficient, or more suitable for specific use cases.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`Intl.NumberFormat`**: A globalization API that provides a way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings.
2. **`toLocaleString`**: A method that converts a number to a string, formatted according to the current locale settings.

**Pros and Cons**

### Intl.NumberFormat

Pros:

* Provides more control over formatting options (e.g., minimum and maximum fraction digits)
* Can handle complex date and time formats
* Supports multiple locales

Cons:

* May be slower than `toLocaleString` for simple number formatting tasks
* Has a steeper learning curve due to its feature-rich API

### toLocalString

Pros:

* Faster execution speed compared to `Intl.NumberFormat`
* Simpler API with fewer configuration options
* More suitable for simple number formatting tasks

Cons:

* Less control over formatting options
* May not support complex date and time formats or multiple locales

**Library: Intl.NumberFormat**

The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is part of the JavaScript Internationalization API. It provides a way to format numbers according to the user's locale settings, including currency symbols, decimal separators, and thousand separators.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code for each test case is empty, which means that MeasureThat.net likely assumes that the necessary configuration options (e.g., locale settings) are already applied to the environment where the benchmarks will be run.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for formatting numbers in JavaScript include:

1. **Math.round() and String concatenation**: A simple but slower approach using mathematical rounding and string concatenation.
2. **String.prototype.toFixed()**: Another simple approach using the `toFixed()` method to format a number as a string.
3. **Custom implementation**: A custom implementation using bitwise operations, bit manipulation, or other low-level techniques.

These alternatives are not typically used in production code due to their performance characteristics and potential errors.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString rev.2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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