Benchmark: moment vs datefns format ba

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/date-fns/1.29.0/date_fns.min.js"></script>
<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 Preparation code:

var date = new Date()

Tests:

moment
moment(date).format("YYYY-MM-DD")
datefns
dateFns.format(date, 'YYYY-MM-DD')
date
date.getYear()+"-"+date.getMonth()+"-"+date.getDate()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment
datefns
date

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking scenario and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of three JavaScript libraries: Moment.js, Datefns, and a native JavaScript `Date` object. Specifically, it tests their formatting capabilities when converting a `Date` object to a string in the format "YYYY-MM-DD".

**Options compared:**

1. **Moment.js**: The first test case uses Moment.js to format the date. Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
2. **Datefns**: The second test case uses Datefns, another popular JavaScript library for working with dates.
3. **Native JavaScript `Date` object**: The third test case uses the native JavaScript `Date` object to format the date.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Moment.js**:
	* Pros: Well-established library, large community, and a wide range of features.
	* Cons: Can be heavier than other libraries due to its feature-rich nature, which can impact performance.
2. **Datefns**:
	* Pros: Lightweight and fast compared to Moment.js, with a strong focus on date manipulation.
	* Cons: Smaller community compared to Moment.js, which might limit support and resources for complex use cases.
3. **Native JavaScript `Date` object**:
	* Pros: Extremely lightweight and efficient, as it's part of the browser's built-in API.
	* Cons: Limited functionality compared to dedicated libraries like Moment.js or Datefns.

**Libraries used in test cases:**

1. **Moment.js**: The first two test cases use Moment.js versions 2.7.0 and 0.2.2 (moment-timezone), respectively.
2. **Datefns**: Only the second test case uses Datefns version 1.29.0.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2020.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other libraries that could be used for this benchmarking scenario include:

1. Luxon: A modern, lightweight library for working with dates and times.
2. js-joda: Another popular JavaScript library for date manipulation.
3. Day.js: A lightweight, high-performance library for working with dates.

These alternatives might provide different performance characteristics or trade-offs in terms of features and complexity compared to Moment.js, Datefns, or the native JavaScript `Date` object.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.85 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment	353056.8 Ops/sec
datefns	593388.7 Ops/sec
date	2842954.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

moment vs datefns format ba (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment vs datefns vs date

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

moment

datefns

date

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):