Benchmark: moment vs custom parse

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment/2.7.0/moment.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment-timezone/0.2.2/builds/moment-timezone-with-data.js"></script></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRnd(val) {
	return ("00" + Math.trunc(Math.random() * val)).slice(-2);
}

var data = new Array(1000).fill('').map(() => `${getRnd(24)}:${getRnd(60)}`);

Tests:

moment
data.map(time => moment('1970-01-01 ' + time))
custom
function parseTime(time) { const components = time.split(':'); return (Number(components[0]) * 60 + Number(components[1])) * 60000; } data.map(time => parseTime(time))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment
custom

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Purpose**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using the Moment.js library and implementing a custom parsing function for date/time strings.

**Library: Moment.js**

Moment.js is a popular JavaScript date library that provides various features for working with dates, including parsing, formatting, and manipulating date components. In this benchmark, it's used to parse date/time strings in the format "HH:mm".

The Moment.js library is included via two scripts:

1. The main Moment.js library (`moment.js`) is loaded from a CDN.
2. A specific version of the Moment Timezone library (`moment-timezone-with-data.js`) is also loaded from a CDN.

**Custom Parsing Function**

In contrast, the custom parsing function uses a simple algorithm to extract the hours and minutes components from the input string and calculate the total number of milliseconds.

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons:

* **Moment.js:**
	+ Pros:
		- Well-maintained and widely adopted library with a large community.
		- Provides many features for working with dates, including parsing and formatting.
		- Handles edge cases like timezones and daylight saving.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of object creation and method calls.
		- May require additional dependencies (e.g., Moment Timezone).
* **Custom Parsing Function:**
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and efficient, as it only requires basic string manipulation.
		- No dependency on external libraries.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more manual handling of edge cases and formatting options.
		- May not be as widely adopted or well-maintained.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If speed is critical, the custom parsing function might be a better choice. However, for most use cases, the performance difference will be negligible.
* **Code Complexity**: Moment.js provides a robust API with many features, but it also adds complexity to your codebase. The custom parsing function is simpler and more concise.
* **Maintainability**: As Moment.js has a large community and is widely adopted, it's generally easier to find help and resources when working with it.

**Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax used that would require additional explanation. Both the custom parsing function and Moment.js use standard JavaScript data types and operations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment	284.9 Ops/sec
custom	4134.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

moment vs custom parse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment vs custom

Created: 6 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

moment

custom

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):