Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString 2

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = formater.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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	2327953.8 Ops/sec
toLocalString	26088404.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.

**What is tested:**

The provided benchmark compares two JavaScript methods for formatting numbers:

1. `Intl.NumberFormat`: This method uses the Internationalization API (Intl) to format numbers according to the locale and style specified in the constructor.
2. `toLocalString`: This method is part of the DOM API (specifically, the `Number` object) and formats a number as a string in the locale's default format.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

A) Using `Intl.NumberFormat` with a specific locale (`en-US`) and style (`decimal`).

B) Using the `toLocalString` method without specifying any locale or style.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Option A (Intl.NumberFormat):**

Pros:

* Provides more control over formatting options, such as locale, style, and padding.
* Can handle complex number formats with multiple decimal places and grouping.
* Supports internationalization, making it suitable for global applications.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the additional overhead of creating an Intl instance.
* Requires explicit handling of errors, such as invalid input or formatting failures.

**Option B (toLocalString):**

Pros:

* Faster execution since no Intl instance needs to be created.
* Easier error handling, as it throws exceptions instead of returning errors.

Cons:

* Less control over formatting options, as it defaults to the locale's default format.
* May not handle complex number formats or internationalization correctly.

**Other considerations:**

Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. When dealing with simple numbers, `toLocalString` might be a better choice due to its speed advantage. However, when handling more complex formatting requirements or requiring internationalization, `Intl.NumberFormat` is likely the better option.

**Library/Libraries mentioned:**

The benchmark uses two libraries:

1. Intl (Internationalization API): Provides support for formatting numbers and other data according to locale and style.
2. None (but it's implied that DOM API methods are used).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If not using `Intl.NumberFormat`, alternative methods might include:

* Using the `NumberFormat` method from a third-party library, such as Moment.js or numbro.
* Implementing custom formatting logic using string concatenation or regular expressions.
* Leveraging browser-specific APIs, like the `Intl.NumberFormat` API in Safari.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and limitations compared to the original benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Created: 5 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):