Benchmark: Moment valueOf vs. new Date().getTime()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.29.1/moment.min.js"></script>

Tests:

moment().valueOf()
return moment().valueOf()
new Date().getTime()
return new Date().getTime()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment().valueOf()
new Date().getTime()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Purpose**

The test aims to compare the performance of two approaches: `moment().valueOf()` and `new Date().getTime()`. Both methods are used to get the current timestamp, but they use different libraries and have distinct characteristics.

**Moment.js Library**

Moment.js is a popular JavaScript date library that provides a simple way to work with dates. It allows you to create objects that can be manipulated like actual dates, making it easier to perform date-related operations in your code. In this test, Moment.js is used to get the current timestamp using the `valueOf()` method.

**New Date().getTime() Method**

The `new Date().getTime()` method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970) as a long integer. This method does not involve any external libraries and is part of the built-in JavaScript object.

**Comparison Options**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Moment.js (`moment().valueOf()`)**: This option uses the Moment.js library to get the current timestamp.
2. **Built-in JavaScript (`new Date().getTime()`)**: This option uses the built-in `Date` object and its `getTime()` method to get the current timestamp.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Moment.js**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and intuitive code
		+ Provides additional date-related features beyond just getting a timestamp
	* Cons:
		+ Adds extra overhead due to the library's presence
		+ May not be as performant as the built-in JavaScript method
2. **Built-in JavaScript**
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and efficient, with minimal overhead
		+ Built into every JavaScript engine, so no additional libraries need to be loaded
	* Cons:
		+ Code may look less readable or more verbose due to the `new Date()` construction

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If high performance is crucial, the built-in JavaScript method might be a better choice.
* Readability and maintainability: If code readability is important, using Moment.js (`moment().valueOf()`) might be more suitable.

**Alternative Options**

Other alternatives to consider when getting the current timestamp include:

1. **Date.now()**: This is another built-in JavaScript method that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch.
2. **Intl.DateTimeFormat**: This API provides a way to work with dates and times in a more modern and consistent manner across browsers.

However, for this specific benchmark, comparing `moment().valueOf()` with `new Date().getTime()` is relevant because they represent different approaches to achieving the same goal: getting the current timestamp.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment().valueOf()	5702397.0 Ops/sec
new Date().getTime()	13047838.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Moment valueOf vs. new Date().getTime() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment().valueOf() vs new Date().getTime()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

moment().valueOf()

new Date().getTime()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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