Benchmark: date formatter libraries

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.1/moment.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.2.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fecha/2.3.3/fecha.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/date-fns/1.29.0/date_fns.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs"></script>
<script src="https://wzrd.in/standalone/dateformat@latest"></script>
<script src="https://wzrd.in/standalone/time-stamp@latest"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/fdate"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.__date__ = new Date();
window.__expected__ = '2000/01/06';

Tests:

3846masa/fdate
var actual = fdate`${'YYYY'}/${'MM'}/${'DD'}`(__date__); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
moment/moment
var actual = moment(__date__).format('YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
moment/luxon
var actual = luxon.DateTime.fromJSDate(__date__).toFormat('yyyy/MM/dd'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
taylorhakes/fecha
var actual = fecha.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
date-fns/date-fns
var actual = dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
xx45/dayjs
var actual = dayjs(__date__).format('YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
felixge/node-dateformat
var actual = dateformat(__date__, 'yyyy/mm/dd'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
jonschlinkert/time-stamp
var actual = timeStamp('YYYY/MM/DD', __date__); console.assert(actual === __expected__);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
3846masa/fdate
moment/moment
moment/luxon
taylorhakes/fecha
date-fns/date-fns
xx45/dayjs
felixge/node-dateformat
jonschlinkert/time-stamp

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 dive into the world of date formatter microbenchmarks.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents six individual test cases, each testing the performance of a different JavaScript library for formatting dates. The libraries being tested are:

1. `fdate`
2. `moment.js`
3. `luxon`
4. `fecha` (by Taylor Hakes)
5. `date-fns`
6. `dayjs`

Each test case measures the execution time of formatting a date using the respective library.

**Options compared**

The different libraries being tested offer varying approaches to date formatting:

1. **Moment.js**: Uses a template string-based approach, where you specify the format as a string.
2. **Luxon**: Employs a more modern and flexible API, allowing for granular control over formatting options.
3. **Fecha** (by Taylor Hakes): Offers a simple, straightforward syntax for formatting dates.
4. **Date-fns**: Provides a more functional programming style, with an emphasis on utility functions.
5. **Dayjs**: Utilizes a simpler, more concise syntax, often referred to as "pipeable" or "fluent."

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Here's a brief summary:

1. **Moment.js**:
	* Pros: Wide adoption, extensive documentation, and a large community.
	* Cons: Can be verbose, and its API has some quirks.
2. **Luxon**:
	* Pros: Modern design, flexible, and customizable.
	* Cons: Steeper learning curve due to the more functional programming style.
3. **Fecha** (by Taylor Hakes):
	* Pros: Simple, easy to use, and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Limited community support compared to other libraries.
4. **Date-fns**:
	* Pros: Functional programming style, concise syntax, and a growing community.
	* Cons: May not be as well-known or widely adopted as other libraries.
5. **Dayjs**:
	* Pros: Simple, fast, and suitable for many use cases.
	* Cons: Relatively small community compared to more established libraries.

**Benchmarking results**

The provided benchmarking results show the execution times for each test case across different browsers and platforms. These results should help you understand the relative performance characteristics of each library in this specific context.

Keep in mind that this is just a snapshot, and performance can vary depending on the specific use case, data size, and other factors.

In conclusion, the choice of date formatter library depends on your project's requirements, personal preferences, and existing ecosystem.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.212 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
3846masa/fdate	92985.6 Ops/sec
moment/moment	85526.7 Ops/sec
moment/luxon	61315.7 Ops/sec
taylorhakes/fecha	84044.1 Ops/sec
date-fns/date-fns	81848.5 Ops/sec
xx45/dayjs	58301.7 Ops/sec
felixge/node-dateformat	49124.3 Ops/sec
jonschlinkert/time-stamp	79144.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

date formatter libraries (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 3846masa/fdate vs moment/moment vs moment/luxon vs taylorhakes/fecha vs date-fns/date-fns vs xx45/dayjs vs felixge/node-dateformat vs jonschlinkert/time-stamp

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

3846masa/fdate

moment/moment

moment/luxon

taylorhakes/fecha

date-fns/date-fns

xx45/dayjs

felixge/node-dateformat

jonschlinkert/time-stamp

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):