The benchmark titled "CUSTOM MomentJS vs Native Date" compares the performance of two approaches for handling date and time in JavaScript: using the Moment.js library versus using the native JavaScript Date object. Here’s a breakdown of what’s tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and relevant considerations.

Approaches

1. Moment.js

   • Test Case:

     moment('2017-09-29T11:23:40.483Z').add('MMM DD, YYYY hh:mm:ss A');
     

   • Description: Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. In this test case, it attempts to add a date string formatted as 'MMM DD, YYYY hh:mm:ss A' to a Moment instance created from a specific ISO date string.

2. Native JavaScript Date

   • Test Case:

     let d = new Date('2017-09-29T11:23:40.483Z')
     d.getDate() + "-" + (d.getMonth()+1) + "-" + d.getFullYear() + " " + d.getHours() + ":" + d.getMinutes();
     

   • Description: This approach uses the native JavaScript Date object to create a date from a string and retrieves the date components (day, month, year, hours, and minutes) to format them manually into a string.

Performance Results

Based on the latest benchmark results obtained from the tests:

• Native Date:

  • Executions Per Second: 3,459,097.25
  • Test Name: Native

• Moment.js:

  • Executions Per Second: 125,628.71
  • Test Name: Moment

From these results, it is clear that the native approach vastly outperforms Moment.js in terms of execution speed.

Pros and Cons

Moment.js:

• Pros:

  • Rich feature set for date manipulation and formatting.
  • An easy-to-use API that simplifies complex date operations (e.g., adding durations, formatting dates).
  • Handles time zones and locales effectively.

• Cons:

  • Slower performance in this benchmark compared to the native Date.
  • In recent years, it has been largely superseded by more lightweight libraries or even by native date/time functions, as the Moment.js library is now considered large and somewhat outdated for modern applications.

Native JavaScript Date:

• Pros:

  • Fast performance, as demonstrated in benchmark results.
  • No additional library dependencies, reducing overhead in terms of bundle size and loading time.
  • Finally, many modern browsers have improved their implementation of the Date object.

• Cons:

  • The API is less intuitive for complex date manipulations compared to Moment.js.
  • Manual handling of formatting and time zones may introduce bugs or require additional effort.

Other Considerations

• Date Time Libraries Alternatives:

  • Libraries like date-fns and Luxon are lighter alternatives that provide many of the same capabilities as Moment.js while often being more efficient.
  • date-fns focuses on a modular approach, enabling developers to include only necessary functions, thus potentially reducing the overall size.
  • Luxon provides a rich API and better timezone handling by leveraging the Intl API.

• Use Cases:

  • When simple date manipulations and fast performance are key, using the native Date object would typically be preferable.
  • When complex date handling, formatting, or working with locales is needed, and performance is less critical, libraries remain a viable choice.

In summary, this benchmark highlights a fundamental trade-off between ease of use with Moment.js and performance with native JavaScript Date handling. Developers should weigh their specific requirements to determine the best approach for date manipulation.