Benchmark: DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3

Script Preparation code:

var formatter = Intl.DateTimeFormat(["en"], {
    month: 'short',
    day: 'numeric',
  })

Tests:

formatter
formatter.format(new Date());
toLocaleDateString
new Date().toLocaleDateString("en", { month: 'short', day: 'numeric' })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
formatter
toLocaleDateString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different methods for formatting dates:

1. `Intl.DateTimeFormat`: This method uses an internationalized date format, where you specify a language and options (like month and day styles) to create a formatted string.
2. `toLocaleDateString`: This method is a more concise and widely supported alternative, which formats the date based on the system's locale settings.

**Options compared**

Both methods have different approaches:

* `Intl.DateTimeFormat`:
	+ Allows for fine-grained control over formatting options (language, script, date style).
	+ Can be slower due to its additional overhead.
* `toLocaleDateString`:
	+ Uses the system's locale settings, making it faster and more user-friendly.
	+ Has limited customization options.

**Pros and Cons**

* `Intl.DateTimeFormat`:
	+ Pros: Offers precise control over formatting options, suitable for complex date needs.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to its additional overhead, may not work in all systems or browsers.
* `toLocaleDateString`:
	+ Pros: Faster, more user-friendly, and widely supported by most systems and browsers.
	+ Cons: Limited customization options, may produce unexpected results if locale settings are different from expected.

**Library/Library Purpose**

The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` library is part of the JavaScript API (ECMAScript Internationalization), which provides internationalized support for formatting dates, times, and numbers.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature that's relatively modern: template literals (`\r\n`) in the script preparation code. This syntax allows you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to write JavaScript code. However, older browsers might not support this syntax, so it's essential to consider compatibility when using this feature.

**Other alternatives**

If `Intl.DateTimeFormat` or `toLocaleDateString` don't meet your needs, other options include:

* Using a dedicated date formatting library (e.g., moment.js, date-fns).
* Implementing a custom date formatting function from scratch.
* Utilizing HTML templates and JavaScript to format dates dynamically.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own pros and cons, and some might be more suitable for your specific use case than others.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.146 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
formatter	368728.3 Ops/sec
toLocaleDateString	7163.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: formatter vs toLocaleDateString

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

formatter

toLocaleDateString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):