Benchmark: Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()

Tests:

Intl.DateTimeFormat()
new Intl.DateTimeFormat("ja-JP-u-ca-japanese").format(new Date())
Date().ISOString()
new Date().toISOString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
Date().ISOString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**Overview**
The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: using `Date()` with `.toISOString()` method and using `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` to format dates in Japanese culture (ja-JP-u-ca-japanese).

**Options compared**

1. **`Date().toISOString()`**: This approach uses the built-in `Date` object and its `.toISOString()` method to generate a string representation of the date.
2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat()`**: This approach uses the Internationalization API (`Intl`) to format dates in a specific culture (ja-JP-u-ca-japanese).

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`Date().toISOString()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and fast execution.
	* Cons: May not provide the desired cultural formatting, as it uses UTC time zone by default.
2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat()`**:
	* Pros: Provides accurate cultural formatting, handles date and time zones correctly, and is more flexible than `Date().toISOString()`.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional overhead of internationalization.

**Library used**

The library used in this benchmark is `Intl`, which provides support for internationalization and localization. Specifically, `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` uses the ICU (International Components for Unicode) library under the hood.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that `Date()` and `.toISOString()` are standard features of the JavaScript language.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to format dates with more complex cultural requirements, you might consider using other libraries or APIs, such as:

* `moment.js`: A popular date library for JavaScript that provides more advanced formatting options.
* `dayjs`: Another popular date library that offers a simpler API and faster performance.
* Custom internationalization solutions, depending on the specific requirements of your project.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and support for various cultural formats.

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
Intl.DateTimeFormat()	11785.3 Ops/sec
Date().ISOString()	2730742.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.DateTimeFormat()

Date().ISOString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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