Benchmark: Date.parse vs new Date (with valueOf())

Tests:

new Date
new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf();
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date
Date.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. `new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf()`
2. `Date.parse('01/01/2001')`

Both approaches aim to convert a string representation of a date ('01/01/2001') into a JavaScript Date object and then extract its value.

**Options compared:**

The two options being tested are:

A) Using the `new Date()` constructor with an argument (`new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf()`)
B) Using the `Date.parse()` method (`Date.parse('01/01/2001')`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Option A (new Date()):**

Pros:

* More explicit and readable
* Allows for easier maintenance and modification of date formats

Cons:

* May be slower due to the additional construction step
* Requires careful consideration of date format parsing

**Option B (Date.parse()):**

Pros:

* Faster execution, as it's a single function call
* Less code, making it more concise

Cons:

* Less explicit and less readable, as the intent is not immediately clear
* May lead to errors if the date format is incorrect or ambiguous

**Library usage:**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `Date` and `Date.parse()` are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, you might consider adding additional options, such as:

* Using a different date format (e.g., ISO 8601)
* Incorporating locale-specific date formats
* Comparing performance with other approaches, like using the `Date.parse()` method in conjunction with a library

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.135 Safari/537.36 Edg/84.0.522.63

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date	799761.6 Ops/sec
Date.parse	1074006.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.parse vs new Date (with valueOf()) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 days ago):