Benchmark: Dayjs Date-fns format comparison

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs@1.8.21/dayjs.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

Date-fns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds); window.datefns.format(new Date(), "mm-dd-yyyy");
Dayjs
dayjs(ds) dayjs().format("MM-DD-YYYY")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date-fns
Dayjs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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:

1. **Date-fns**: A JavaScript library for working with dates, providing various functions for formatting, parsing, and manipulating date values.
2. **Dayjs**: A lightweight JavaScript library for working with dates, similar to Date-fns but with some differences in syntax and functionality.

**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:

* **Date-fns**: Pros:
	+ More comprehensive feature set, including support for various date formats, time zones, and parsing rules.
	+ Better support for formatting complex date expressions (e.g., "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.SSSZ").
	+ Easier to extend with custom plugins.
* Cons:
	+ Smaller community compared to Dayjs.
	+ Some users find its syntax more verbose than Dayjs.
* **Dayjs**: Pros:
	+ Simpler and more concise syntax, making it easier to learn and use for beginners.
	+ Faster performance, especially for simple date operations.
	+ Larger community and better support for newer browsers.
* Cons:
	+ Less comprehensive feature set compared to Date-fns.
	+ Limited support for formatting complex date expressions.

**Library Usage**

The test cases use both libraries, with the following code snippets:

1. **Date-fns**: `window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);` and `window.datefns.format(new Date(), "mm-dd-yyyy");`
2. **Dayjs**: `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:

1. **Luxon**: A modern JavaScript date library with a simple and consistent API.
2. **Moment.js**: A popular date library with a wide range of features, including internationalization support.
3. **MSTimescale**: A lightweight date library optimized for performance and simplicity.

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.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 128 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date-fns	47843.4 Ops/sec
Dayjs	73850.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Dayjs Date-fns format comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date-fns vs Dayjs

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date-fns

Dayjs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):