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.

JavaScript function parseFloat() fails for negative values in certain locales

While working with locale translation and parsing decimal numbers from text to numerical values in Angular 10, I came across the following problem:
Consider the string value value = "-35.17 %". I want to convert this a numerical value using parseFloat(value). This works fine for application locale en-US.
However, if the user changes application locale to nb-NO (Norwegian), the parsing fails, resulting in a NaN.
The reason for this is that the Norwegian locale uses a different character for the negative prefix (− instead of -).
The workaround for this particular issue is simple, by performing a .replace("−", "-") on the string before parsing, but shouldn't JavaScript be able to handle parsing of both these characters? Is it only safe to perform parsing on locale en-US?

The JavaScript function parseFloat() needs an input string that meets certain requirements, including (but not limited to) the following:
If parseFloat encounters a character other than a plus sign (+), minus sign (- U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS), numeral (0–9), decimal point (.), or exponent (e or E), it returns the value up to that character, ignoring the invalid character and characters following it.
Localized strings may contain characters that does not meet those requirements.

JSON.stringify() converts integers to exponential

I have a record
[
"5GrwvaEF5zXb26Fz9rcQpDWS57CtERHpNehXCPcNoHGKutQY",
1000000000000000000000
],
JSON.stringify() converts it to the form
[
"5GrwvaEF5zXb26Fz9rcQpDWS57CtERHpNehXCPcNoHGKutQY",
1e+21
],
JSON.stringify() writes it accordingly the same way, can this be somehow solved?

JSON.parse doesn't convert it to 1e+21, it converts it to a number that, when converted to string in the usual way, is output as the string "1e+21". But the number is the same number whether you write it as 1000000000000000000000 or 1e+21.
JSON.stringify may output it in either form; both are valid JSON numbers, and both define exactly the same number.
I should note that you need to beware of numbers of that magnitude in JavaScript (or any other language that uses IEEE-754 double-precision floating point numbers [or single-precision ones, actually]). That number is well into the range where even integers may be imprecisely represented. Any number greater than 9,007,199,254,740,992 (Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER + 1) may or may not have a precise representation. It happens that 10,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 (your number) does, but for instance, 9,007,199,254,740,993 doesn't, nor do any odd numbers from that point upward. At some point, you get to where only multiples of 4 can be represented; and then later it's only multiple of 8, etc. See this question's answers for more.

If you still need to get 1e+21 as 1000000000000000000000, you can use (1e+21).toLocaleString().split(',').join('')
but actually, you don't need to convert it if you want to use it as a number, because they are absolutely the same.
Instead, you can keep the number as string and use +'1000000000000000000000' or parseInt('1000000000000000000000') when you need to use it as a number.

Add trailing zeros to an integer without converting to string in JS?

I'm looking to add decimals to the end of my integer. As an example:
15 => 15.00
The problem with methods like toFixed is that it will convert it into a string. I've tried to use parseFloat() and Number() on the string, but it'll convert it back to an integer with no decimals.
Is this possible? If not, can someone explain to me the logic behind why this isn't possible?
EDIT: Welp the intent was to display the number as a number, but from the going consensus, it looks like the way the only way to go about it is to use a string. Found an answer on the why: https://stackoverflow.com/a/17811916/8869701

The problem you are finding is that all numbers in javascript are floats.
a = 0.1
typeof a # "number"
b = 1
typeof b # number
They are the same.
So there is no real way to convert to from an integer to a float.
This is the reason that all of the parseFloat etc are string methods for reading and writing numbers from strings. Even if you did have floats and integers, specifying the precision of a number only really makes sense when you are displaying it to a user, and for this purpose it will be converted to a string anyway.
Depending on your exact use case you will need to use strings if you want to display with a defined precision.

When working with numbers 15 and 15.00 are equal. It wouldn't make any sense to use memory to store those trailing or leading zeros.
If that information is needed it is usually for displaying purposes. In that case a string is the right choice.
In case you need that value again you can parse the string as a number.

+ operator vs parseFloat

Example 1 of the knockout extenders page describes a way of rounding user input and making sure it is only numeric.
It works great, but looking through the source they do a peculiar thing that i don't understand, that is on line 8 they do this:
parseFloat(+newValue)
newValue is a string.
When i initially asked this question I didn't know what + did - some further poking and a link to a different MDN page from one of the initial answers I got indicate it is a unary operator equivalent to number(str) and that there are some differences between +str and parseFloat(str) (treatment of strings ending in alpha characters and interpretation of hex seem to be the headlines).
I still don't understand why the + in this case needed to be wrapped in the parseFloat although I am starting to think it might be a typo...

Citing MDN docs for parseFloat:
parseFloat parses its argument, a string, and returns a floating point number. If it encounters a character other than a sign (+ or -), numeral (0-9), a decimal point, or an exponent, it returns the value up to that point and ignores that character and all succeeding characters. Leading and trailing spaces are allowed.
Using [unary plus operator][2] you may be sure that `parseFloat` operates on `Number`, which is only useful if you want to be more strict about results but still want to use a `parseFloat`
parseFloat('0.32abcd') // -> 0.32
parseFloat(+'0.32abcd') // -> NaN
**Update:**
After a bit of digging in docs and running some tests, seems there is no reason to use parseFloat other than parsing strings that may contain numbers with non numeric trails to number, eq:
parseFloat('31.5 miles') // -> 31.5
parseFloat('12.75em') // -> 12.75
For any other cases where your string contains number + is a fastest and prefered way (citing MDN docs for unary plus operator):
unary plus is the fastest and preferred way of converting something into a number, because it does not perform any other operations on the number.
See parseFloat versus unary test case for how faster it is.
Previous link broken so here is the new test that shows how unary is faster.