Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date().toISOString() vs new Date().toLocaleString()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date().toISOString() vs new Date().toLocaleString()
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var timestamp = null;
Tests:
new Date().toISOString()
timestamp = new Date().toISOString();
new Date().toLocaleString()
timestamp = new Date().toLocaleString();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date().toISOString()
new Date().toLocaleString()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
4 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/143.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome 143 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
new Date().toISOString()
888113.8 Ops/sec
new Date().toLocaleString()
617166.7 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **What is tested?** MeasureThat.net tests two approaches to generating strings from the JavaScript `Date` object: `toISOString()` and `toLocaleString()`. The goal is to compare their performance, specifically the execution speed of each method. **Options compared:** 1. **`new Date().toISOString()`**: This method returns a string in ISO 8601 format (e.g., "2023-12-25T14:30:00.000Z"). 2. **`new Date().toLocaleString()`**: This method returns a string representation of the date and time in a culturally-specific format (e.g., "December 25, 2023 2:30 PM"). **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **`new Date().toISOString()`**: * Pros: + Unambiguous, universally-recognized format. + Can be easily parsed by computers and humans alike. * Cons: + May not display the date in a culturally-sensitive way (e.g., month-long names instead of numbers). 2. **`new Date().toLocaleString()`**: * Pros: + Displays dates in a culturally-specific format, making it more readable for human users. * Cons: + Less widely recognized and parsed by computers compared to `toISOString()`. + May not work as expected when dealing with certain date or time formats (e.g., UTC offsets). **Library and purpose:** The provided benchmark definition does not use any external libraries. However, it relies on the built-in JavaScript `Date` object. **Special JS features or syntax:** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. **Other alternatives:** If you need to generate a string representation of a date and time in JavaScript, other alternatives include: 1. **`Date.toISOString()`**: Returns a string in ISO 8601 format, similar to `toISOString()`. 2. **`Date.toUTCString()`**: Returns a string representation of the date and time in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). 3. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat`.format()`**: Returns a string representation of the date and time in a culturally-specific format using the Intl.DateTimeFormat API. These alternatives offer different trade-offs between readability, universality, and simplicity, depending on your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime() vs + new Date
Date.now() vs new Date().toISOString()
Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?