Benchmark: luxon 2 vs datefns

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@2.1.1/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

datefns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
datefns
luxon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two libraries: Luxon and Datefns, specifically their parsing capabilities for ISO-formatted dates. The test focuses on determining which library is faster when parsing a single date string.

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Luxon**: A modern, open-source date and time library that aims to be fast, lightweight, and easy to use.
2. **Datefns**: Another popular date and time library that provides an extensive set of features, including parsing capabilities for various date formats.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Luxon**:
	+ Pros:
		- Designed for performance and ease of use.
		- Supports a wide range of date formats out of the box.
		- Lightweight and easy to include in projects.
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional setup or configuration for specific use cases.
* **Datefns**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides an extensive set of features for working with dates and times.
		- Supports a wide range of date formats, including some uncommon ones.
		- Easy to use and integrate into projects.
	+ Cons:
		- May be larger in size compared to Luxon.
		- Some users may find its API more complex than Luxon's.

**Library usage:**

In the provided benchmark definition, both libraries are used to parse an ISO-formatted date string. The test code is:

```javascript
// Luxon
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);

// Datefns
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
```

Both libraries use a similar approach to parse the date string: they split the input string into its constituent parts (year, month, day, hour, minute, second) and then combine them according to their respective format specifications.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

None of the test code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a straightforward comparison of two libraries' parsing capabilities.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative date and time libraries in JavaScript, some popular options include:

1. **Moment.js**: A widely used library for working with dates and times, but it has its own set of limitations and dependencies.
2. **Day.js**: A lightweight, modern alternative to Moment.js that aims to provide a similar API while being more performant.
3. **js-joda**: Another Java-based date and time library that provides an extensive set of features, including parsing capabilities.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and project requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
datefns	811722.8 Ops/sec
luxon	461082.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

luxon 2 vs datefns (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: datefns vs luxon

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

datefns

luxon

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):