Benchmark: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs new Date().toLocaleDateString() correct 2

Script Preparation code:

var options = {
  year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
  hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
  hour12: false,
  fractionalSecondDigits: 3,
}

Tests:

Intl.DateTimeFormat()
var formatter = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options); var date = new Date(); for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){ formatter.format(date); }
Date().toLocaleString()
var date = new Date(); for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){ date.toLocaleString("en-US", options) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
Date().toLocaleString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Intl.DateTimeFormat()

3K/s

Date().toLocaleString()

132/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Intl.DateTimeFormat()	3,339 Ops/sec
Date().toLocaleString()	132 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript benchmarks. The tests compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Intl.DateTimeFormat()**: This method uses the `Internationalization` API to format dates according to a specified locale and options.
2. **Date().toLocaleString()**: This method uses the built-in `Date` object and the `toLocaleString()` method to format dates.

**Options compared**

The options used in both tests are identical, as shown in the `Script Preparation Code`. The common options include:

* `year`: displays the year in the desired format
* `month`: displays the month in the desired format (e.g., "numeric" for a numeric representation)
* `day`: displays the day of the month in the desired format
* `hour`: displays the hour in 24-hour format
* `minute`: displays the minute in numeric format
* `second`: displays the second in numeric format
* `hour12`: indicates whether to display hours in 12-hour format (false) or 24-hour format (true)
* `fractionalSecondDigits`: specifies the number of fractional seconds to display

**Pros and cons**

The choice between Intl.DateTimeFormat() and Date().toLocaleString() depends on several factors:

* **Readability**: Intl.DateTimeFormat() provides more readable date formats, while Date().toLocaleString() uses a simpler format.
* **Performance**: Intl.DateTimeFormat() might be slower due to its additional overhead of parsing and formatting the locale information.
* **Browser support**: Both methods are widely supported by modern browsers. However, Intl.DateTimeFormat() is still relatively new, so some older browsers may not support it.

**Library**

In this case, there is no library explicitly used in the test code. However, the Intl.DateTimeFormat() method relies on the Internationalization API, which is a built-in JavaScript library for working with locales and formatting dates.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The tests use some special features:

* **Template literals**: The `Script Preparation Code` uses template literals (e.g., `\r\n`) to format the code.
* **Object destructuring**: The `Test Name` fields in each test case use object destructuring (e.g., `"Test Name": "Intl.DateTimeFormat()"`) to assign values from an object.

**Other alternatives**

Other alternatives for formatting dates in JavaScript include:

* Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon
* Creating custom date format functions using string concatenation or regex patterns

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs, such as performance, readability, and browser support.

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs new Date().toLocaleDateString() correct 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().toLocaleString()`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.DateTimeFormat()

Date().toLocaleString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs new Date().toLocaleDateString() correct 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().toLocaleString()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.DateTimeFormat()

Date().toLocaleString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().toLocaleString()`