Benchmark: JavaScript Based ISO String Computation vs. Browser Native Date.toISOString()

Script Preparation code:

window.dates = [];

for (let i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
    window.dates.push(new Date());
}

Tests:

Slow
function isDate(date) { return Object.prototype.toString.call(date); } function toISOString(date) { if (isDate(date)) { var pad = function (num) { var r = String(num); if (r.length === 1) { r = "0" + r; } return r; }; return date.getUTCFullYear() + "-" + pad(date.getUTCMonth() + 1) + "-" + pad(date.getUTCDate()) + "T" + pad(date.getUTCHours()) + ":" + pad(date.getUTCMinutes()) + ":" + pad(date.getUTCSeconds()) + "." + String((date.getUTCMilliseconds() / 1000).toFixed(3)).slice(2, 5) + "Z"; } } window.dates.forEach(date => toISOString(date));
Fast
function getIsoString(date) { try { return date.toISOString(); } catch { } } window.dates.forEach(date => getIsoString(date));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Slow
Fast

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare two approaches for computing ISO strings from JavaScript dates:

1. **Custom implementation**: The first approach, labeled "Slow", uses a custom function `toISOString` that manually constructs the ISO string by extracting and formatting various date components.
2. **Browser native method**: The second approach, labeled "Fast", utilizes the built-in `Date.toISOString()` method provided by modern web browsers.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Custom implementation (Slow)**: This approach involves writing custom code to manually construct the ISO string from a date object.
2. **Browser native method (Fast)**: This approach leverages the built-in `Date.toISOString()` method, which is likely implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.

**Pros and Cons**

**Custom Implementation (Slow)**

Pros:

* Control over the output format and any potential customizations
* No reliance on browser-specific implementation details or potential regressions

Cons:

* Requires manual code maintenance to ensure accuracy and consistency
* May be slower due to the overhead of manually constructing the ISO string

**Browser Native Method (Fast)**

Pros:

* Typically faster, as it leverages optimized C++ code
* Less prone to human error or inconsistencies in output format

Cons:

* Limited control over the output format
* Relying on browser implementation details and potential regressions

**Library/Tool Considerations**

None of the benchmark's test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The `Date.toISOString()` method is a built-in feature in modern web browsers, which converts a date object to an ISO string. This syntax allows developers to easily work with dates and timestamps in their applications.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to recreate this benchmark, you could consider additional alternatives:

1. Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality for generating ISO strings.
2. Implementing the `toISOString` method using a different language (e.g., Java or C#).
3. Utilizing alternative methods for computing dates and timestamps, such as JavaScript's `Date.parse()` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have varying degrees of performance impact, flexibility, and ease of use compared to the custom implementation and browser native method used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

JavaScript Based ISO String Computation vs. Browser Native Date.toISOString() (version: 1)

JavaScript Based ISO String Computation vs. Browser Native Date.toISOString()

Comparing performance of: Slow vs Fast

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Slow

Fast

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):