Benchmark: parseFloat or Number

Tests:

Number - 100.00
Number('100.00')
parseFloat - 100.00
parseFloat('100.00')
Number - 123.45
Number('123.45')
parseFloat - 123.45
parseFloat('123.45')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Number - 100.00
parseFloat - 100.00
Number - 123.45
parseFloat - 123.45

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/130.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Number - 123.45

11.3M/s

Number - 100.00

11.1M/s

parseFloat - 100.00

8.9M/s

parseFloat - 123.45

8.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Number - 123.45	11,313,742 Ops/sec
Number - 100.00	11,084,285 Ops/sec
parseFloat - 100.00	8,853,331 Ops/sec
parseFloat - 123.45	8,744,374 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested:**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript functions: `Number` and `parseFloat`. The benchmark measures the execution time of these two functions when called with decimal numbers.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Number**: This function takes a string as an argument, parses it as a number, and returns the result.
2. **parseFloat**: This function also takes a string as an argument, but it only parses the part of the string that consists of digits and optional decimal points, ignoring any whitespace or other characters.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Number**: The main advantage of using `Number` is its simplicity and readability. However, it may not be the most efficient option, as it needs to parse the entire string, which can lead to performance issues when dealing with large numbers.
2. **parseFloat**: On the other hand, `parseFloat` is more efficient than `Number`, as it only parses the part of the string that consists of digits and optional decimal points. This makes it a better choice for cases where the input string may contain whitespace or other characters.

**Library/Function description:**

*   No external library is required to run these benchmark tests.
*   The built-in JavaScript `Number` and `parseFloat` functions are used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None of the provided benchmarks make use of any special JavaScript features or syntax. They only rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other alternatives:**

In theory, other methods could be used to parse decimal numbers from strings, such as:

1.  **Regular expressions**: You can use regular expressions to extract the numeric part from a string and then convert it to a number.
2.  **String slicing**: You can slice the input string to extract the numeric part and then convert it to a number.
3.  **Mathematical manipulations**: You can manually manipulate the input string to extract the numeric part and then convert it to a number.

However, using built-in functions like `Number` or `parseFloat` is generally recommended, as they are more efficient and readable than implementing your own parsing logic.

Here's an example of how you could parse decimal numbers from strings using regular expressions:

```javascript
function parseFloat(str) {
    const regex = /\d+(\.\d+)?/g;
    let match = regex.exec(str);
    if (!match) return NaN;

return Number(match[0]);
}
```

And here's an example of how you could parse decimal numbers from strings using string slicing:

```javascript
function parseFloat(str) {
    const start = str.indexOf('.');
    if (start === -1) return Number(str);

const partBeforeDecimal = str.slice(0, start);
    const partAfterDecimal = str.slice(start + 1);

return Number(partBeforeDecimal) + Number(partAfterDecimal) / Math.pow(10, partAfterDecimal.length);
}
```

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or readable as using built-in functions like `Number` and `parseFloat`.

parseFloat or Number (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `Number - 100.00 vs parseFloat - 100.00 vs Number - 123.45 vs parseFloat - 123.45`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Number - 100.00

parseFloat - 100.00

Number - 123.45

parseFloat - 123.45

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

parseFloat or Number (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Number - 100.00 vs parseFloat - 100.00 vs Number - 123.45 vs parseFloat - 123.45

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Number - 100.00

parseFloat - 100.00

Number - 123.45

parseFloat - 123.45

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: `Number - 100.00 vs parseFloat - 100.00 vs Number - 123.45 vs parseFloat - 123.45`