Benchmark: new Date vs Date Parse

Tests:

new
new Date('2020-01-01')
parse
new Date(Date.parse('2020-01-01'))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new
parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new	2431262.2 Ops/sec
parse	1663100.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to create a `Date` object:

1. Using the `new Date()` constructor with a fixed date string (`"2020-01-01"`).
2. Using the `Date.parse()` function to parse a fixed date string and then creating a new `Date` object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

A) **Hardcoded Date**: Creating a `Date` object using the `new Date()` constructor with a fixed date string.
B) **Parsing + Creation**: Using the `Date.parse()` function to parse a fixed date string and then creating a new `Date` object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**A) Hardcoded Date**

Pros:

* Easier to read and write, as it's more explicit about the desired date.
* May be faster since it avoids the overhead of parsing a date string.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for dates that need to be dynamically set based on user input or other factors.
* Less flexible, as it relies on a specific format for the date string.

**B) Parsing + Creation**

Pros:

* More flexible, as it can handle dynamic date inputs and various date formats.
* Can be faster in some cases since `Date.parse()` is optimized for performance.

Cons:

* Requires more code to achieve the same result, which can make it harder to read and maintain.
* May introduce additional overhead due to parsing.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there doesn't seem to be any specific library being used beyond JavaScript's built-in `Date` object. However, if you're interested in exploring alternative libraries for date manipulation or parsing, some popular options include:

* Moment.js
* Luxon
* Date-fns

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't a special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here, as the benchmark is focused on comparing two basic approaches to creating `Date` objects.

**Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing their own date-related code, some potential alternatives might include:

* Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API for flexible date parsing and formatting.
* Implementing custom date parsing logic using regular expressions or other techniques.
* Leveraging WebAssembly's built-in support for dates and times.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be relevant to this specific benchmark, but they could be useful in other contexts where you need more advanced date manipulation capabilities.

Related benchmarks:

new Date vs Date Parse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new vs parse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new

parse

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):