Benchmark: toLocaleDateString_perf

Script Preparation code:

Date.prototype.mmddyyyy = function() {         

    var yyyy = this.getFullYear().toString();                                    
    var mm = (this.getMonth()+1).toString(); // getMonth() is zero-based         
    var dd  = this.getDate().toString();             

    return (mm[1]?mm:"0"+mm[0]) + '/' + (dd[1]?dd:"0"+dd[0]) + '/' + yyyy;
};

Tests:

custom function
var z = new Date().mmddyyyy();
with toLocaleDateString
var z = new Date().toLocaleDateString('en-US', { month: '2-digit', day: '2-digit', year: 'numeric' });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
custom function
with toLocaleDateString

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 benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small piece of code designed to measure the performance of specific aspects of JavaScript execution. In this case, we have two benchmark definitions:

1. ".toLocaleDateString_perf"
	* This benchmark definition has no script preparation code and no HTML preparation code.
	* It simply defines the name and description of the benchmark.

The individual test cases are defined within the benchmark definition:

2. "custom function" and "with toLocaleDateString"

These test cases measure the performance of two different approaches:

**Approach 1: Custom Function**

This approach uses a custom function, `mmddyyyy`, which is defined in the script preparation code:
```javascript
Date.prototype.mmddyyyy = function() {
    var yyyy = this.getFullYear().toString();
    var mm = (this.getMonth()+1).toString(); // getMonth() is zero-based
    var dd  = this.getDate().toString();

return (mm[1]?mm:"0"+mm[0]) + '/' + (dd[1]?dd:"0"+dd[0]) + '/' + yyyy;
};
```
This function takes a Date object and returns a string in the format "MM/DD/YYYY". The performance measurement for this approach is made by calling this function with a new Date object.

**Approach 2: toLocaleDateString**

This approach uses the `toLocaleDateString` method of the Date object, which returns a string representation of the date in a specific locale. In this case, the locale is set to "en-US" and the options specify:

* month: "2-digit"
* day: "2-digit"
* year: "numeric"

The performance measurement for this approach is made by calling `toLocaleDateString` with a new Date object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Custom Function**
	+ Pros:
		- More control over the output format
		- Can be more flexible
	+ Cons:
		- Requires defining a custom function, which may add overhead
		- May not work in all browsers or locales
* **toLocaleDateString**
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported and standardized
		- Less prone to browser-specific issues
	+ Cons:
		- Limited control over the output format
		- May not work as expected in certain locales

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `toLocaleDateString` uses the ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) specification for internationalization and localization.

No special JavaScript features are used in this benchmark, but if we were to compare performance with other approaches that use special features, such as async/await or generators, those would introduce additional complexities not present here.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring performance in JavaScript might include:

* Using the `performance.now()` method to measure time elapsed
* Creating a simple timer function using `setInterval` or `setTimeout`
* Using a benchmarking library like Benchmark.js or jsperf

Each of these approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of the project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
custom function	997075.4 Ops/sec
with toLocaleDateString	5741.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toLocaleDateString_perf (version: 0)

Format date as string using custom function and toLocaleDateString

Comparing performance of: custom function vs with toLocaleDateString

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

custom function

with toLocaleDateString

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):