<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+01:00";
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(window.ds, { setZone: true }).toString();
moment.utc(window.ds).format();
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
luxon | |
moment |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
luxon | 282591.1 Ops/sec |
moment | 109768.6 Ops/sec |
I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.
Overview
The benchmark compares the performance of two popular date and time libraries: Luxon and Moment.js. The test case uses the luxon.DateTime.fromISO
method to parse a UTC date string and then converts it back to a string using the toString()
method.
Options Compared
The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:
luxon.DateTime.fromISO
method with the setZone
option set to true
. This approach takes into account the time zone offset when parsing the date string.moment.utc
function with the .format()
method to format the parsed date.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
Library Used
The benchmark uses two popular JavaScript libraries:
Special JS Feature/Syntax
None mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's worth noting that Luxon uses a more modern syntax for date and time manipulation, which may make it easier to read and write code. Moment.js has its own syntax and API, which can take some getting used to.
Other Considerations
Alternatives
For those interested in exploring alternative date and time libraries for JavaScript, some popular options include:
These libraries offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, ease of use, and feature set, so it's worth exploring each option to determine the best fit for your specific needs.