Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toUTC() vs toUTC().toISO()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
luxon toISO() vs luxon toUTC().toISO()
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.ds = luxon.DateTime.now();
Tests:
luxon toISO()
window.ds.toISO()
luxon toUTC().toISO()
window.ds.toUTC().toISO()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
luxon toISO()
luxon toUTC().toISO()
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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined as a comparison between two approaches: `luxon.toUTC()` followed by `.toISO()`, versus just calling `luxon.toISO()` directly. This means that for both test cases, the same underlying library function (`toISO`) is being called, but with an additional step in one of them. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Direct call to `luxon.toISO()`**: Calling the function without any intermediate steps. 2. **`luxon.toUTC().toISO()`**: Applying the `toUTC()` method before calling `toISO()`. This involves an additional function call and potentially more computations. **Pros and Cons** * **Direct Call (`luxon.toISO()`)**: + Pros: Simple, straightforward approach with fewer computational steps. + Cons: May not account for any potential differences in behavior between different browsers or platforms. * **`luxon.toUTC().toISO()`**: + Pros: Can help ensure consistency across different time zones and locales by applying `toUTC()` first. + Cons: Adds an extra function call, which may introduce overhead and affect performance. **Library: Luxon** Luxon is a modern JavaScript date and time library developed by Mozilla. It provides a set of functions for working with dates and times, including formatting and parsing. The `luxon.toUTC()` method converts the current date to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), while `toISO()` formats the date in ISO 8601 format. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches using a well-established library. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches, here are a few options: * **Date.js**: Another popular JavaScript date and time library that provides similar functionality to Luxon. * **Moment.js**: A widely used library for working with dates and times in JavaScript. However, it's now maintained by the same company as React, which may impact its compatibility and security. * **Native JavaScript functions**: Depending on your specific use case, you might be able to achieve similar results using native JavaScript functions like `Date` or `Intl.DateTimeFormat`. However, these approaches can be more cumbersome and less flexible than using a dedicated library. In summary, the benchmark is testing two different approaches for formatting dates with Luxon: direct call to `toISO()` versus calling `toUTC()` before `toISO()`. The direct approach is simpler but may not account for differences in behavior across browsers or platforms.
Related benchmarks:
luxon.fromSeconds(seconds) vs Date(seconds * 1000)
luxon.fromSeconds vs luxon.fromJSDate
dategeneration
dategeneration2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?