Benchmark: Date.toLocaleDateString

Script Preparation code:

var x = new Date('5-11-2018');
var y = new Date('5-11-2018');

Tests:

without toLocaleDateString
var z = x.getFullYear() === y.getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === y.getMonth() && x.getDate() === y.getDate();
with toLocaleDateString
var z = x.toLocaleDateString('en-US') === y.toLocaleDateString('en-US');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without toLocaleDateString
with toLocaleDateString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_1) AppleWebKit/604.3.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/11.0.1 Safari/604.3.5

Browser/OS: Safari 11 on Mac OS X 10.13.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without toLocaleDateString	4973623.5 Ops/sec
with toLocaleDateString	5024268.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches for comparing dates in JavaScript:

1. Using the `Date.get*` methods (i.e., `getFullYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()`) directly.
2. Using the `toLocaleDateString()` method with a locale parameter (`'en-US'`).

**Options compared:**

The benchmark tests two scenarios:

**Scenario 1: Without toLocaleDateString**

This scenario uses the traditional `Date.get*` methods to compare the dates.

**Scenario 2: With toLocaleDateString**

This scenario uses the `toLocaleDateString()` method with a locale parameter (`'en-US'`) to format and compare the dates.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Without toLocaleDateString (Date.get* methods)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More explicit and intuitive way to access date components.
		+ No dependency on formatting libraries or frameworks.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of getting individual date components.
		+ Less flexible, as it doesn't allow for custom formatting.
2. **With toLocaleDateString**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it uses a optimized implementation in browsers.
		+ More flexible, allowing for custom formatting and locale-specific behavior.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with this method.
		+ Requires dependency on the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API or a formatting library.

**Library:**

The benchmark uses the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API to format dates using the `toLocaleDateString()` method. This is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API, which provides support for formatting and manipulating dates in various languages and locales.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and later versions. However, it does utilize the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API, which may require a modern browser or environment to work properly.

**Other alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use the `toLocaleDateString()` method, you can also consider using:

1. **Date formatting libraries**: Such as Moment.js, Luxon, or Date-fns, which provide more flexible and customizable date formatting options.
2. **Custom implementation**: You could write a custom function to format dates using your preferred algorithm or library.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies, complexity, or performance overhead compared to the `toLocaleDateString()` method.

Related benchmarks:

Date.toLocaleDateString (version: 0)

Comparing 2 dates with Date.toLocaleDateString() vs using Date.get* methods

Comparing performance of: without toLocaleDateString vs with toLocaleDateString

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without toLocaleDateString

with toLocaleDateString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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