Benchmark: date comp - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

test a
let a = new Date();
test b
let b = new Date(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test a
test b

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided `Benchmark Definition` JSON is quite minimal, which means that the creator of the benchmark didn't specify any specific parameters or variables to be used in the benchmark. This is likely because the goal of this benchmark is simply to compare the performance of creating a new Date object with different initial values.

**Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code**

The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty, which means that no specific setup or initialization code needs to be executed before running the benchmark. This is likely because the creator of the benchmark wants to start from a clean slate and measure the performance of creating a new Date object with different initial values.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. `test a`: Creates a new Date object using the default constructor (`let a = new Date();`).
2. `test b`: Creates a new Date object with an initial value of 0 (`let b = new Date(0);`).

**Library and Purpose**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. The creation of Date objects is a built-in JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The provided test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. They are simple and straightforward expressions that create Date objects with different initial values.

**Performance Comparison**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. Creating a new Date object with the default constructor (`let a = new Date();`).
2. Creating a new Date object with an initial value of 0 (`let b = new Date(0);`).

The performance comparison is likely between these two approaches to measure which one is faster.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. `new Date()`: This approach uses the default constructor, which means it requires only a single argument (the date value). This can be beneficial for performance, as it reduces the number of arguments passed to the constructor.
2. `new Date(0)`: This approach creates a new Date object with an initial value of 0, which is likely the lowest possible value that can be represented by a Date object. This approach may require additional overhead due to the explicit argument passed to the constructor.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create more complex benchmarks or test different scenarios, here are some alternative approaches:

1. Compare performance with and without using `new Date()`: Measure the performance of creating a new Date object using the default constructor versus an explicitly created Date object.
2. Compare performance with and without considering timezone offsets: Measure the performance of creating a new Date object with different initial values (e.g., UTC, local time) versus a single global timezone offset.
3. Test multiple browser environments: Create benchmarks that run in multiple browser environments (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Safari) to compare performance across different browsers.

These alternatives can help you create more comprehensive and realistic benchmarks that simulate real-world scenarios and provide meaningful insights into JavaScript performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test a	5458922.5 Ops/sec
test b	6832508.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

date comp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test a vs test b

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test a

test b

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):