Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Moment toDate vs new Date
(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://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>
Tests:
moment
moment().toDate()
native
new Date()
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:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
moment
4225328.5 Ops/sec
native
18349114.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is testing the performance of two approaches to convert a date object to its `Date` type: 1. Using the Moment.js library (`moment().toDate()`). 2. Using the native JavaScript `Date` constructor (`new Date()`). **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. * **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript function to create a new `Date` object. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Moment.js:** Pros: * Easier to use, especially when working with complex date formats or timezones. * Often preferred by developers due to its extensive feature set and community support. Cons: * Adds overhead due to the library's execution and memory usage. * May not be optimized for performance in all browsers or environments. **Native JavaScript:** Pros: * Lightweight and fast, as it doesn't require the extra library load. * Optimized for performance in most modern browsers. Cons: * Requires more manual handling of date formats and timezones. * Can be error-prone if not used correctly. **Library Usage** The Moment.js library is being used to test its performance. In this benchmark, `moment().toDate()` is the specific function being tested. **Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax** There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. **Other Alternatives** Other alternatives for date conversion might include: * Using the `Date` constructor with a string representation of the date (e.g., "2022-07-25T14:30:00.000Z"). * Utilizing other libraries, such as Luxon or Date-fns, which offer similar functionality to Moment.js. However, in this specific benchmark, we're only comparing Moment.js and native JavaScript, so these alternatives aren't relevant. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Date vs moment 1238uu
MomentJS vs Native test
MomentJS vs Native Date
MomentJS vs Native Date 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?