Benchmark: Intl.DateTimeFormat.format2

Script Preparation code:

var DATE_TIME_OPTIONS = {
  hour: 'numeric',
  minute: 'numeric',
  year: 'numeric',
  month: '2-digit',
  day: '2-digit',
};

var date = new Date(1234567890123);

Tests:

Intl.DateTimeFormat.format
Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', DATE_TIME_OPTIONS).format(date);
toLocaleString
date.toLocaleString()
toString
date.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.DateTimeFormat.format
toLocaleString
toString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case for measuring the performance of different methods to format dates in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

In this benchmark, the script preparation code creates an object `DATE_TIME_OPTIONS` that defines the formatting options for dates. It also creates a new `Date` object with the timestamp 1234567890123, which is used as input for the formatting operations.

```javascript
var DATE_TIME_OPTIONS = {
  hour: 'numeric',
  minute: 'numeric',
  year: 'numeric',
  month: '2-digit',
  day: '2-digit'
};

var date = new Date(1234567890123);
```

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares three different methods to format dates:

1. **Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()**: Uses the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API to format a date object.
2. **toLocaleString()**: Formats a date object using the `toLocaleString()` method, which returns a string in the locale's default format.
3. **toString()**: Converts a date object to a string using the `toString()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and customizable formatting options compared to `toLocaleString()` and `toString()`.
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to additional parsing steps.
* **toLocaleString()**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance and simpler implementation compared to `Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()`.
	+ Cons: Formatting options are limited by the locale's default format, which may not meet specific requirements.
* **toString()**:
	+ Pros: Simplest implementation and fastest performance among the three methods.
	+ Cons: Less flexible and customizable formatting options compared to `Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()`.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` library, which is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API. This library provides a standardized way to format dates and numbers according to the user's locale preferences.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark that require additional explanation.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for formatting dates in JavaScript include:

* Using a custom implementation with string concatenation or template literals.
* Utilizing third-party libraries like Moment.js or DayPilot for more advanced date formatting capabilities.

However, the `Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()` method is generally considered the most modern and efficient approach for formatting dates in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.DateTimeFormat.format2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.DateTimeFormat.format vs toLocaleString vs toString

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.DateTimeFormat.format

toLocaleString

toString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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