Benchmark: moment with & without formats, vs moment new Date & moment date.parse

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.17.1/moment.js"></script>

Tests:

moment with format
return moment("2016-12-24T09:00:00Z", "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ssZ")
moment without format
return moment("2016-12-24T09:00:00Z")
Date.parse
return moment(Date.parse("2016-12-24T09:00:00Z"));
new Date
return moment(new Date("2016-12-24T09:00:00Z"));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment with format
moment without format
Date.parse
new Date

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the execution performance of four different approaches:

1. `new Date()` and `moment(new Date())`
2. `Date.parse()` and `moment(Date.parse())`

The test measures how long it takes to execute these functions in each scenario.

**Approaches**

1. **`new Date()` and `moment(new Date())`**: This approach involves creating a new `Date` object using the `new Date()` constructor, passing an ISO-formatted string (`"2016-12-24T09:00:00Z"`). The resulting date is then passed to the `moment()` function for parsing.

Pros: Simple and straightforward way to create a date object.
Cons: May incur additional overhead due to string parsing and formatting, especially if the input string is large or malformed.

2. **`Date.parse()` and `moment(Date.parse())`**: This approach involves using the `Date.parse()` method to parse an ISO-formatted string directly into a `Date` object. The resulting date can then be passed to the `moment()` function for parsing.

Pros: More efficient than creating a new `Date` object from scratch, as it leverages the optimized parsing implementation.
Cons: May require careful handling of input errors and edge cases.

3. **`moment with format`**: This approach involves passing an ISO-formatted string to the `moment()` function without specifying a format.

Pros: Simplifies the benchmarking process by removing the need for explicit formatting.
Cons: May incur additional overhead due to automatic format detection, which can be less efficient than using a specific format.

4. **`moment without format`**: This approach involves passing an ISO-formatted string to the `moment()` function without specifying a format, similar to the previous approach.

Pros: Similar benefits as before.
Cons: May incur additional overhead due to automatic format detection.

**Libraries and Features**

* `moment.js`: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides various formatting options, parsing capabilities, and other features like timezone handling.

In this benchmark, the `moment()` function is used to parse ISO-formatted strings into date objects. The `new Date()` constructor is used to create date objects from scratch, while `Date.parse()` is used for parsing dates directly from strings.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these approaches, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Input validation**: How well each approach handles malformed or invalid input data?
* **Performance overhead**: What are the performance implications of using each approach, especially for large or complex inputs?
* **Code simplicity and readability**: How easy is it to write code that uses each approach?

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for working with dates and times in JavaScript include:

* `Date`: The built-in JavaScript `Date` object, which provides a simple way to work with dates.
* `Intl.DateTimeFormat`: An API for formatting dates according to the user's locale.
* **ES6 date classes**: New features introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that provide improved support for working with dates and times.

These alternatives may offer advantages or disadvantages compared to using the `moment()` library.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/103.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 103 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment with format	22478.5 Ops/sec
moment without format	17200.4 Ops/sec
Date.parse	333522.1 Ops/sec
new Date	390629.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

moment with & without formats, vs moment new Date & moment date.parse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment with format vs moment without format vs Date.parse vs new Date

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

moment with format

moment without format

Date.parse

new Date

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):