<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs@1.8.21/dayjs.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);
window.datefns.format(new Date(), "mm-dd-yyyy");
dayjs(ds)
dayjs().format("MM-DD-YYYY")
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Date-fns | |
Dayjs |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Date-fns | 331932.0 Ops/sec |
Dayjs | 288515.8 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.
Benchmark Test
The benchmark tests two popular JavaScript libraries for working with dates: Dayjs and Date-fns. The test cases compare the performance of these libraries in parsing an ISO-formatted date string and formatting a new date object using a specific format.
Options Compared
The options being compared are:
Pros and Cons of Each Approach
Both libraries are designed to perform well in terms of performance, readability, and ease of use. However, here are some pros and cons of each approach:
Library Usage
The test cases use both libraries, with the following code snippets:
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);
and window.datefns.format(new Date(), "mm-dd-yyyy");
dayjs(ds)
and dayjs().format("MM-DD-YYYY")
Special JS Feature or Syntax
Neither library uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6+ syntax.
Other Alternatives
If you're looking for alternative libraries, consider:
Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to evaluate your specific needs and choose the best fit for your project.