Benchmark: Fatest way to build date object on frontend

Tests:

Create from array
new Date(2023, 03, 03, 12, 03, 33)
Create from text
new Date('1995-12-17T03:24:00')
Create from timestamp
new Date(1672542500)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Create from array
Create from text
Create from timestamp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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 its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests different approaches to creating Date objects in JavaScript, specifically on the frontend. There are three individual test cases:

1. Creating a Date object from an array of arguments (e.g., `new Date(2023, 03, 03, 12, 03, 33)`).
2. Creating a Date object from a string representing a date and time in ISO format (e.g., `'1995-12-17T03:24:00'`).
3. Creating a Date object from a Unix timestamp (a number representing the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to creating Date objects:

1. **Array-based approach**: `new Date(year, month, day, hour, minute, second)` or similar.
2. **Text-based approach**: `new Date(date_string)` where `date_string` is in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS).
3. **Timestamp-based approach**: `new Date(timestamp)` where `timestamp` is a number representing the Unix timestamp.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array-based approach**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and understand, especially for developers familiar with the format.
	* Cons: Can be less efficient than other approaches, as it requires multiple function calls.
2. **Text-based approach**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient, as it allows for parsing a single string into a Date object.
	* Cons: Requires knowledge of the ISO date format, which can be error-prone if not handled correctly.
3. **Timestamp-based approach**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it directly converts a number to a Date object without any intermediate steps.
	* Cons: May require additional processing to handle edge cases (e.g., timezone conversions).

**Library usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, JavaScript's built-in `Date` constructor is used for all three approaches.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax specifically required for these test cases. They only rely on standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to creating Date objects include:

1. **Using `Date.now()`**: This function returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC), which can be used as a timestamp.
2. **Using a dedicated date library**: There are several JavaScript libraries available that provide more advanced features for working with dates and times, such as Moment.js or Luxon.

However, the benchmark focuses on comparing three specific approaches (array-based, text-based, and timestamp-based) rather than exploring alternative methods or libraries.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Create from array	2990948.5 Ops/sec
Create from text	2811007.2 Ops/sec
Create from timestamp	8080793.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Fatest way to build date object on frontend (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Create from array vs Create from text vs Create from timestamp

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Create from array

Create from text

Create from timestamp

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):