Benchmark: Check valid date string

Tests:

new Date().toString()
new Date(' 2023-04-15 ').toString() !== 'Invalid Date'
Date.parse
!isNaN(Date.parse(' 2023-04-15 '))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date().toString()
Date.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides the name and description of the test, which is "Check valid date string". However, it does not specify the purpose or expected outcome of the test. It only defines a script preparation code, which is empty in this case.

**Script Preparation Code**

Since the script preparation code is empty, there are no custom scripts being executed before running the tests. This means that any differences in performance will be solely due to the difference in how each test is implemented and executed by the JavaScript engine.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines two individual test cases:

1. `new Date().toString() !== 'Invalid Date'`
2. `!isNaN(Date.parse(' 2023-04-15 '))`

These test cases are designed to check if the `Date` object can parse and convert a valid date string into a valid date object.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are compared in terms of their performance, which is measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on different browsers (Chrome 114) with various device platforms (Desktop).

**Pros/Cons:**

1. **`new Date().toString() !== 'Invalid Date'`**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward test case.
		+ Can be easily implemented by anyone familiar with JavaScript.
	* Cons:
		+ This test is not very informative about the performance of parsing and converting date strings, as it's more focused on the `toString()` method's behavior rather than the actual parsing process.
2. **`!isNaN(Date.parse(' 2023-04-15 '))`**
	* Pros:
		+ More comprehensive test case that checks if the date string can be parsed correctly by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more expertise in JavaScript and date manipulation, which might make it less accessible to beginners.

**Library**

Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries. The `Date` object is a built-in JavaScript object, and the `Date.parse()` method is also a part of the standard library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in either test case. Both tests rely on standard JavaScript functionality and do not utilize any advanced or experimental features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare the performance of different methods for parsing date strings, here are a few alternatives:

1. `new Date('2023-04-15T00:00:00').getTime()` vs. `Date.parse('2023-04-15')`
	* These tests would focus on comparing the performance of different ways to parse and convert date strings.
2. Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more advanced features for working with dates and times.
3. Comparing the performance of different browsers' implementations of `Date.parse()`.

Keep in mind that when using external libraries, you need to consider factors like licensing, compatibility, and potential impact on benchmark results.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date().toString()	374692.6 Ops/sec
Date.parse	1288670.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Check valid date string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date().toString() vs Date.parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date().toString()

Date.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):