Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
fdfsfffagt
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
moment vs native
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment/2.7.0/moment.js"></script>
Tests:
moment
moment.utc().format('YYYY-MM-DD')
native
var dateObject = new Date(); dateObject.toUTCString().split('T')[0]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
moment
native
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is simply a JavaScript code snippet that calculates a specific value or converts it to a different format. In this case, we have two benchmark definitions: 1. `moment.utc().format('YYYY-MM-DD')`: This benchmark tests the performance of Moment.js, a popular JavaScript library for working with dates. 2. `var dateObject = new Date();\r\ndateObject.toUTCString().split('T')[0]`: This benchmark tests the performance of native JavaScript functionality to convert a date object to a UTC string without using any libraries. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, we have two options being compared: 1. **Moment.js**: This option uses the Moment.js library to perform the date conversion. 2. **Native JavaScript**: This option relies solely on native JavaScript functionality to achieve the same result. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: **Moment.js:** Pros: * Easy to use and well-documented * Handles various date formats and edge cases * Fast performance compared to native JavaScript Cons: * Adds an extra dependency (the library itself) * Might have additional overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection **Native JavaScript:** Pros: * No external dependencies or overhead * Utilizes built-in browser functions, which are optimized for performance Cons: * Requires more manual handling of edge cases and date formats * May not be as straightforward to use compared to Moment.js **Library (Moment.js) Purpose** Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides various methods for formatting, parsing, and manipulating dates, including support for different time zones. The library aims to simplify date-related tasks by providing a consistent and intuitive API. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no specific special features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that Moment.js uses Unicode characters (e.g., U+2022) in its formatting options, which might be relevant for certain date formats or locales. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative libraries to Moment.js, some popular alternatives include: * Luxon: A modern JavaScript library for working with dates and times, known for its high performance and flexibility. * Date-fns: A lightweight JavaScript library that provides various date-related functions, including formatting and parsing. For native JavaScript implementations, other alternatives might include: * The Intl.DateTimeFormat API: Provides a way to format dates and numbers according to the user's locale and preferences. * The date-fns library's core functions: Offers a set of basic date-related functions that can be used for manual implementation.
Related benchmarks:
Moment Tests 12345
moment vs datefns format f
Creating Date vs Moment
Moment Dayjs Date-fns date format benchmark with abs comparitor
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?