Benchmark: luxon vs datefns formatting

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/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.format(window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds), 'yyyy/MM/dd')
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds).toFormat('yyyy/MM/dd');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
datefns
luxon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 11; SM-N975U) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.104 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 96 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
datefns	58045.5 Ops/sec
luxon	62456.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two JavaScript libraries, Luxon and DateFNS, on their formatting capabilities for date strings. Specifically, they are comparing how quickly each library can format a given input string (`window.ds`) into a specific output format (`'yyyy/MM/dd'`).

**Options compared:**

1. **DateFNS**: This is a lightweight JavaScript date parsing and formatting library developed by Igor Mooser.
2. **Luxon**: This is another popular JavaScript date parsing and formatting library, known for its robustness and performance.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **DateFNS**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and easy to use
		- Fast and efficient
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as feature-rich as Luxon
		- Requires manual handling of edge cases
* **Luxon**:
	+ Pros:
		- Robust and feature-rich, with built-in support for many date formats
		- Easy to use and well-documented
	+ Cons:
		- May be heavier than DateFNS due to its additional features

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, both libraries are used in their `format` method. For Luxon, the method is `fromISO` followed by `toFormat`. For DateFNS, the method is `format`.

* **DateFNS**: The library's `format` method takes an input string and formats it according to a specified format.
* **Luxon**: The `fromISO` method parses an ISO-formatted date string, and then the `toFormat` method converts it into a new format.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses the following special feature:

* **Iso-8601 parsing**: Both libraries are using the ISO 8601 standard to parse the input date string. This standard provides a widely adopted and well-defined way of representing dates in a standardized format.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance of two JavaScript libraries, DateFNS and Luxon, on their formatting capabilities for date strings, specifically the Iso-8601 parsing feature. The results will provide insight into which library performs better under similar load conditions.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative JavaScript date parsing and formatting libraries, here are a few options:

* **Moment.js**: A popular and widely-used library for working with dates in JavaScript.
* **js-joda**: Another lightweight and feature-rich library for date and time calculations.
* **Day.js**: A modern library for working with dates and times in JavaScript, known for its simplicity and ease of use.

These libraries may have different strengths and weaknesses compared to Luxon and DateFNS, so it's worth exploring each option to determine which best fits your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs datefns formatting (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 2 months ago):