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: 25 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without toLocaleDateString	47400252.0 Ops/sec
with toLocaleDateString	403739.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches for comparing dates in JavaScript:

1. Using `Date.get*` methods (i.e., `getYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()`).
2. Using `Date.toLocaleDateString()` with a locale string (`"en-US"`).

**Options compared**

We have two options being compared:

**Option 1: Without `toLocaleDateString()`**
This approach uses the traditional `Date.get*` methods to compare the dates.

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Does not rely on any external libraries or dependencies.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the additional calculations required to access individual date components.
* Less readable and maintainable code, as it relies on magic numbers and methods.

**Option 2: With `toLocaleDateString()`**
This approach uses the `Date.toLocaleDateString()` method to format the dates and compare them.

Pros:

* Often faster than traditional `Date.get*` methods due to the optimized implementation of `toLocaleDateString()`.
* More readable and maintainable code, as it relies on a well-defined method name.
* Less prone to errors, as the comparison is done using a standardized method.

Cons:

* Requires the browser to support the `toLocaleDateString()` method.
* May not work correctly in all browsers or environments.

**Library used**

The library being tested here is not explicitly mentioned. However, we can assume that it's related to date formatting and comparison. The `Date.toLocaleDateString()` method relies on the Intl.DateTimeFormat API, which is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API (ECMA-402).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the options rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard for JavaScript development.

**Considerations**

When writing this benchmark, the test user likely wanted to compare the performance differences between two approaches that are commonly used when working with dates in JavaScript. By using a simple script preparation code and no HTML preparation code, the focus is on the JavaScript implementation details.

Other alternatives could have been considered, such as:

* Using a date library like Moment.js or Luxon.
* Comparing different formatting options within `Date.toLocaleDateString()`, such as locale-specific formats.
* Adding more complexity to the script preparation code, such as using multiple dates or calculating date differences.

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):