Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
luxon 2 vs datefns
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
datefns vs luxon
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@2.1.1/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script> <script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
Tests:
datefns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
datefns
luxon
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two libraries: Luxon and Datefns, specifically their parsing capabilities for ISO-formatted dates. The test focuses on determining which library is faster when parsing a single date string. **Options compared:** Two options are being compared: 1. **Luxon**: A modern, open-source date and time library that aims to be fast, lightweight, and easy to use. 2. **Datefns**: Another popular date and time library that provides an extensive set of features, including parsing capabilities for various date formats. **Pros and Cons:** * **Luxon**: + Pros: - Designed for performance and ease of use. - Supports a wide range of date formats out of the box. - Lightweight and easy to include in projects. + Cons: - May require additional setup or configuration for specific use cases. * **Datefns**: + Pros: - Provides an extensive set of features for working with dates and times. - Supports a wide range of date formats, including some uncommon ones. - Easy to use and integrate into projects. + Cons: - May be larger in size compared to Luxon. - Some users may find its API more complex than Luxon's. **Library usage:** In the provided benchmark definition, both libraries are used to parse an ISO-formatted date string. The test code is: ```javascript // Luxon window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds); // Datefns luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds); ``` Both libraries use a similar approach to parse the date string: they split the input string into its constituent parts (year, month, day, hour, minute, second) and then combine them according to their respective format specifications. **Special JavaScript features or syntax:** None of the test code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a straightforward comparison of two libraries' parsing capabilities. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative date and time libraries in JavaScript, some popular options include: 1. **Moment.js**: A widely used library for working with dates and times, but it has its own set of limitations and dependencies. 2. **Day.js**: A lightweight, modern alternative to Moment.js that aims to provide a similar API while being more performant. 3. **js-joda**: Another Java-based date and time library that provides an extensive set of features, including parsing capabilities. Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and project requirements.
Related benchmarks:
luxon vs datefns formatting
luxon3 vs datefns
luxon 3.3.0 vs datefns
luxon vs datefns adding
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?