Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toDateString vs getters
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toDateString vs getters
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = new Date();
Tests:
toDateString
a.toDateString();
getters
`${a.getDay()}.${a.getMonth()}.${a.getDate()}.${a.getFullYear()}`
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toDateString
getters
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):
**Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, helping to compare the performance of different approaches to accomplish specific tasks. In this case, we're analyzing a benchmark test that compares two methods for generating a date string: `toDateString()` and getters (directly accessing date component values). **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined in JSON format: ```json { "Name": "toDateString vs getters", "Description": null, "Script Preparation Code": "var a = new Date();", "Html Preparation Code": null } ``` This setup creates a new `Date` object, which is the basis for both test cases. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **toDateString** The benchmark definition for this test case is: `a.toDateString();` This method is part of the built-in `Date` object and returns a string representation of the date in a specific format (usually "Day, Month Date Year"). 2. **getters** The benchmark definition for this test case is: `${a.getDay()}.${a.getMonth()}.${a.getDate()}.${a.getFullYear()}` This expression directly accesses the day, month, date, and year components of the `Date` object using dot notation (`.`). This approach is called a "getter" or "property access". **Comparing Approaches** When comparing these two approaches: * **Pros of `toDateString()`**: + More concise and readable + Built-in method, likely optimized for performance + Less error-prone (no possibility of accessing invalid properties) * **Cons of `toDateString()`**: + May introduce additional overhead due to the built-in method call + Potential issues with date formatting (e.g., locale-dependent) * **Pros of getters (property access)**: + More flexible and customizable + Can be used in a wider range of contexts + Less code duplication (no need to use `toDateString()` for every date) **Cons of getters (property access)**: * More verbose and potentially error-prone ( incorrect property names or indexing) * May incur additional overhead due to the property access operation **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript has built-in functions like `Date` and `String.prototype`, which can be considered libraries. **Special JS Features/Syntax** None of the test cases explicitly uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic `Date` object and string formatting (`${}`).
Related benchmarks:
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date.toLocaleDateString vs Date.toDateString
new Date().toISOString() vs new Date().toLocaleString()
Date.now() vs new Date().toISOString()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?