Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString yoyo

Script Preparation code:

var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US");

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
a.format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");

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/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	2993456.2 Ops/sec
toLocalString	35975524.0 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!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for comparing two approaches: `Intl.NumberFormat` and `toLocalString`.

**What are we testing?**

We're testing how to format numbers in different locales. The benchmark is designed to measure which approach ( Intl.NumberFormat or toLocalString ) performs better.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: A standardized API provided by the Internationalization API, which allows you to specify a locale and format options for numbers.
2. **toLocalString**: The `toLocaleString` method of the built-in JavaScript Number object, which returns a string representation of the number in the specified locale.

**Pros and Cons**

**Intl.NumberFormat**

Pros:

* Provides more control over formatting options (e.g., currency symbols, decimal separators)
* More readable code
* Encourages use of standardized APIs

Cons:

* May be slower due to additional overhead from creating an Intl.NumberFormat instance
* Requires importing the Intl API

**toLocalString**

Pros:

* Faster execution speed
* Fewer lines of code required
* Built-in method, no imports needed

Cons:

* Less control over formatting options (e.g., currency symbols)
* Code may be less readable due to hardcoded locale values
* May not work correctly for all locales or edge cases

**Library and its purpose**

The Intl API is a standardized library provided by the browser vendors (Mozilla, Google, Microsoft). Its primary purpose is to support internationalization and localization of web applications.

In this benchmark, we're using the Intl.NumberFormat class to format numbers in different locales. The `en-US` locale is specified, which means the formatting will follow the conventions of the United States.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. The focus is on comparing two approaches to formatting numbers in a standardized way.

**Alternative approaches**

If you're interested in exploring other options, here are a few alternatives:

1. **NumberFormat.js**: A third-party library that provides a more comprehensive set of formatting options for numbers.
2. **format.js**: Another popular library that allows you to format numbers and dates with a wide range of options.
3. **JavaScript's built-in `toString()` method**: While not as powerful as Intl.NumberFormat or toLocalString, this method can still be used to format numbers in a basic way.

These alternatives may offer more features or flexibility but might also come with trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, or compatibility.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the test case!

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString yoyo (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):