Benchmark: toUTC() vs toUTC().toISO()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = luxon.DateTime.now();

Tests:

luxon toISO()
window.ds.toISO()
luxon toUTC().toISO()
window.ds.toUTC().toISO()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
luxon toISO()
luxon toUTC().toISO()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
luxon toISO()	379931.1 Ops/sec
luxon toUTC().toISO()	355286.0 Ops/sec

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's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a comparison between two approaches: `luxon.toUTC()` followed by `.toISO()`, versus just calling `luxon.toISO()` directly. This means that for both test cases, the same underlying library function (`toISO`) is being called, but with an additional step in one of them.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Direct call to `luxon.toISO()`**: Calling the function without any intermediate steps.
2. **`luxon.toUTC().toISO()`**: Applying the `toUTC()` method before calling `toISO()`. This involves an additional function call and potentially more computations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct Call (`luxon.toISO()`)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward approach with fewer computational steps.
	+ Cons: May not account for any potential differences in behavior between different browsers or platforms.
* **`luxon.toUTC().toISO()`**:
	+ Pros: Can help ensure consistency across different time zones and locales by applying `toUTC()` first.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra function call, which may introduce overhead and affect performance.

**Library: Luxon**

Luxon is a modern JavaScript date and time library developed by Mozilla. It provides a set of functions for working with dates and times, including formatting and parsing. The `luxon.toUTC()` method converts the current date to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), while `toISO()` formats the date in ISO 8601 format.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches using a well-established library.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches, here are a few options:

* **Date.js**: Another popular JavaScript date and time library that provides similar functionality to Luxon.
* **Moment.js**: A widely used library for working with dates and times in JavaScript. However, it's now maintained by the same company as React, which may impact its compatibility and security.
* **Native JavaScript functions**: Depending on your specific use case, you might be able to achieve similar results using native JavaScript functions like `Date` or `Intl.DateTimeFormat`. However, these approaches can be more cumbersome and less flexible than using a dedicated library.

In summary, the benchmark is testing two different approaches for formatting dates with Luxon: direct call to `toISO()` versus calling `toUTC()` before `toISO()`. The direct approach is simpler but may not account for differences in behavior across browsers or platforms.

Related benchmarks:

toUTC() vs toUTC().toISO() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: luxon toISO() vs luxon toUTC().toISO()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

luxon toISO()

luxon toUTC().toISO()

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):