We Keep Coding

Keep trailing or leading zeroes on number

Is it possible to keep trailing or leading zeroes on a number in javascript, without using e.g. a string instead?
const leading = 003; // literal, leading
const trailing = 0.10; // literal, trailing
const parsed = parseFloat('0.100'); // parsed or somehow converted
console.log(leading, trailing, parsed); // desired: 003 0.10 0.100
This question has been regularly asked (and still is), yet I don't have a place I'd feel comfortable linking to (did i miss it?).
Fully analogously would be keeping any other aspect of the representation a number literal was entered as, although asked nowhere near as often:
console.log(0x10); // 16 instead of potentially desired 0x10
console.log(1e1); // 10 instead of potentially desired 1e1
For disambiguation, this is not about the following topics, for some of which I'll add links, as they might be of interest as well:
Padding to a set amount of digits, formatting to some specific string representation, e.g. How can i pad a value with leading zeroes?, How to output numbers with leading zeros in JavaScript?, How to add a trailing zero to a price
Why a certain string representation will be produced for some number by default, e.g. How does JavaScript determine the number of digits to produce when formatting floating-point values?
Floating point precision/accuracy problems, e.g. console.log(0.1 + 0.2) producing 0.30000000000000004, see Is floating point math broken?, and How to deal with floating point number precision in JavaScript?

No. A number stores no information about the representation it was entered as, or parsed from. It only relates to its mathematical value. Perhaps reconsider using a string after all.
If i had to guess, it would be that much of the confusion comes from the thought, that numbers, and their textual representations would either be the same thing, or at least tightly coupled, with some kind of bidirectional binding between them. This is not the case.
The representations like 0.1 and 0.10, which you enter in code, are only used to generate a number. They are convenient names, for what you intend to produce, not the resulting value. In this case, they are names for the same number. It has a lot of other aliases, like 0.100, 1e-1, or 10e-2. In the actual value, there is no contained information, about what or where it came from. The conversion is a one-way street.
When displaying a number as text, by default (Number.prototype.toString), javascript uses an algorithm to construct one of the possible representations from a number. This can only use what's available, the number value, also meaning it will produce the same results for two same numbers. This implies, that 0.1 and 0.10 will produce the same result.
Concerning the number1 value, javascript uses IEEE754-2019 float642. When source code is being evaluated3, and a number literal is encountered, the engine will convert the mathematical value the literal represents to a 64bit value, according to IEEE754-2019. This means any information about the original representation in code is lost4.
There is another problem, which is somewhat unrelated to the main topic. Javascript used to have an octal notation, with a prefix of "0". This means, that 003 is being parsed as an octal, and would throw in strict-mode. Similarly, 010 === 8 (or an error in strict-mode), see Why JavaScript treats a number as octal if it has a leading zero
In conclusion, when trying to keep information about some representation for a number (including leading or trailing zeroes, whether it was written as decimal, hexadecimal, and so on), a number is not a good choice. For how to achieve some specific representation other than the default, which doesn't need access to the originally entered text (e.g. pad to some amount of digits), there are many other questions/articles, some of which were already linked.
[1]: Javascript also has BigInt, but while it uses a different format, the reasoning is completely analogous.
[2]: This is a simplification. Engines are allowed to use other formats internally (and do, e.g. to save space/time), as long as they are guaranteed to behave like an IEEE754-2019 float64 in any regard, when observed from javascript.
[3]: E.g. V8 would convert to bytecode earlier than evaluation, already exchanging the literal. The only relevant thing is, that the information is lost, before we could do anything with it.
[4]: Javascript gives the ability to operate on code itself (e.g. Function.prototype.toString), which i will not discuss here much. Parsing the code yourself, and storing the representation, is an option, but has nothing to do with how number works (you would be operating on code, a string). Also, i don't immediately see any sane reason to do so, over alternatives.

Why is it recommended to provide optional radix parameter to parseInt()?

I've always used the parseInt() function in Javascript without passing the radix parameter. As per the MDN documentation here, it's stated that not providing this parameter may result in unpredictable behaviour.
Always specify this parameter to eliminate reader confusion and to
guarantee predictable behavior.
Could somebody clarify what does this unpredictable behavior mean with some code examples?

In older versions of the language, parseInt() would cause the function to obey the normal JavaScript numeric constant syntax rules, including the recognition of a leading zero to denote octal constants, and a leading 0x to denote hex constants. Thus, if your code didn't explicitly insist on base 10, stray (possibly user-supplied) numbers with leading zeros would be interpreted as base-8 values, and leading 0x as hex.
The base-8 behavior is gone since ES5.1 (I think; might have been earlier), but the base 16 behavior is still there. (Probably a leading 0x is a little more rare as an accidental prefix than a simple leading 0.)
My experience looking at code here on Stack Overflow is that parseInt() is overused anyway. It's usually cleaner to convert strings (often, strings taken from DOM element .value properties) to numbers with the unary + operator:
var count = +document.getElementById("count").value;
That won't necessarily give you an integer, of course. However, what it will do is notice that the input string has trailing non-numeric garbage. The parseInt() function will simply stop parsing a string like "123abc" and give you 123 as the numeric value. The leading + will however give you a NaN.
If you need integers, you can always use Math.floor() or Math.round().
edit — a comment notes that ES2015 requires a leading 0o or 0O in "strict" mode for octal literals, but that doesn't apply to parseInt() which (in ES2015) only overrides the default radix for hex strings.

For some reason best known to themselves, the folk specifying the behaviour of this function set the radix to be a defaultable parameter but then decided to leave the default value up to the implementation! (Perhaps it would have been sensible to insist on a value of 10 but maybe that would have upset folk progamming in the 1970s who still consider octal literals to be useful.)
So for robust progamming, you need to supply the radix parameter yourself.

Without supplying the radix, parseInt tries to determine what the right radix is by the value you pass in, for example if the value starts 0x then it determines you must be passing in hex values. Same applies with 0 (octal).
This becomes problematic when your input is zero-padded but no radix is supplied. Where the result will (possibly) not be as expected
console.log(parseInt(015))

String.fromCharCode() does not work after the value "126"

I have been trying the following code to get the ASCII equivalent character
String.fromCharCode("149")
but, it seems to work till 126 is passed as parameter. But for 149, the symbol generated should be
•

128 and beyond is not standard ASCII.
var s = "•";
alert(s.charCodeAt(0))
gives 8226

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/fromCharCode
Getting it to work with higher values Although most common Unicode
values can be represented with one 16-bit number (as expected early on
during JavaScript standardization) and fromCharCode() can be used to
return a single character for the most common values (i.e., UCS-2
values which are the subset of UTF-16 with the most common
characters), in order to deal with ALL legal Unicode values (up to 21
bits), fromCharCode() alone is inadequate. Since the higher code point
characters use two (lower value) "surrogate" numbers to form a single
character, String.fromCodePoint() (part of the ES6 draft) can be used
to return such a pair and thus adequately represent these higher
valued characters.

The fromCharCode() method converts Unicode values into characters.
to use unicode see the link for unicode table
http://unicode-table.com/en/

I got String.fromCodePoint(149) to show inside an alert in firefox but not in IE & Chrome. It may be because of browser language settings.
But this looks correct accourding to the ASCII table.
http://www.asciitable.com/
This is the code I used
alert(String.fromCodePoint(149));

Why does JavaScript output 16384 instead of 040000? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Prefix zero changes output in number addition [duplicate]
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have encountered a very weird issue with my JavaScript program. I have fount that JavaScript for some reason changes 040000 into 16384! [Example] Does anyone know why JavaScript is doing this?

It's because in js, number literals prepended with 0 are considered octal (base 8)
For example
010 == 8
In your example 040000 is really 4*8*8*8*8 = 16384 because in octal each 0 in the right multiplies the value by 8.
EDIT: Bonus:
If the leading 0 is in a string representation, (for example, if it was introduced by the user), and you want to avoid converting to octal, specify the base (aka radix) with value 10 in the parseInt method call, like this
var number = parseInt("040000", 10); //number will be 40000 ;)
In recent browsers, the radix is 10 by default, but not in old browsers, so if you want maximum compatibility also, always specify the radix parameter (usually 10).
Cheers

Because javascript thinks its in OCTAL format
Explanation:-
Javascript (like most programming languages) allows us to work directly with both octal and hexadecimal numbers, all we need is a way to tell which number base we are using when we specify a number. To identify octal and hexadecimal numbers we add something to the front of numbers using those bases to indicate which base we are using. A leading 0 on the front of a number indicates that the number following is octal while a leading 0x indicates a hexadecimal number. The decimal number 18 can therefore also be represented as 022 (in octal) and 0x12 (in hexadecimal). We don't put a special symbol on the front of decimal numbers so any number that doesn't start with 0 or 0x is assumed to be decimal.
So its same in your case
040000(base8)=16384(base10)

JSON.parse parses / converts big numbers incorrectly

My problem is really simple but I'm not sure if there's a "native" solution using JSON.parse.
I receive this string from an API :
{ "key" : -922271061845347495 }
When I'm using JSON.parse on this string, it turns into this object:
{ "key" : -922271061845347500 }
As you can see, the parsing stops when the number is too long (you can check this behavior here). It has only 15 exact digits, the last one is rounded and those after are set to 0. Is there a "native" solution to keep the exact value ? (it's an ID so I can't round it)
I know I can use regex to solve this problem but I'd prefer to use a "native" method if it exists.

Your assumption that the parsing stops after certain digits is incorrect.
It says here:
In JavaScript all numbers are floating-point numbers. JavaScript uses
the standard 8 byte IEEE floating-point numeric format, which means
the range is from:
±1.7976931348623157 x 10308 - very large, and ±5 x 10-324 - very small.
As JavaScript uses floating-point numbers the accuracy is only assured
for integers between: -9007199254740992 (-253) and 9007199254740992
(253)
You number lies outside the "accurate" range hence it is converted to the nearest representation of the JavaScript number. Any attempt to evaluate this number (using JSON.parse, eval, parseInt) will cause data loss. I therefore recommend that you pass the key as a string. If you do not control the API, file a feature request.

The number is too big to be parsed correctly.
One solution is:
Preprocessing your string from API to convert it into string before parsing.
Preform normal parsing
Optionally, you could convert it back into number for your own purpose.
Here is the RegExp to convert all numbers in your string (proceeded with :) into strings:
// convert all number fields into strings to maintain precision
// : 922271061845347495, => : "922271061845347495",
stringFromApi = stringFromApi.replace(/:\s*(-?\d+),/g, ': "$1",');
Regex explanation:
\s* any number of spaces
-? one or zero '-' symbols (negative number support)
\d+ one or more digits
(...) will be put in the $1 variable