Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
MomentJS vs Native ISO String
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Moment vs Native
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
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().add(1, 'd');
Native
new Date(new Date(new Date().toISOString()).getDate() + 1).toISOString();
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:
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 benchmark definition and test cases. **Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, which compares the performance of two approaches: using Moment.js to create an ISO string with a date offset, and creating an ISO string directly from a Date object. The goal is to determine which approach is faster. **What's being tested?** Two specific methods are being compared: 1. `moment().add(1, 'd');`: This line of code uses the Moment.js library to create an ISO string with a date offset of 1 day. 2. `new Date(new Date(new Date().toISOString()).getDate() + 1).toISOString();`: This line of code creates a new Date object by adding 1 day to the current date, and then converts it to an ISO string using the `toISOString()` method. **Options compared** The two approaches being tested are: * Using Moment.js (option A) * Creating an ISO string directly from a Date object without any library assistance (option B) **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Moment.js (Option A)** * Pros: + Convenient and easy to use + Handles complex date calculations out-of-the-box * Cons: + Adds an extra layer of complexity due to the library dependency + May introduce overhead due to the additional JavaScript execution 2. **Creating an ISO string directly (Option B)** * Pros: + Lightweight and straightforward approach + No additional dependencies or potential overhead * Cons: + Requires manual handling of date calculations, which can be error-prone **Library: Moment.js** Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library for working with dates. Its primary purpose is to simplify date and time manipulation by providing an intuitive API for tasks like calculating offsets, parsing dates from strings, and converting between different date formats. **Special JS feature or syntax: None mentioned** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge of modern JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or destructuring. **Other alternatives** If you were to implement a similar benchmark without using an existing library like Moment.js, you could consider the following alternatives: * Using the built-in `Date` object and its methods (e.g., `getTime()`, `setDate()`, etc.) * Implementing your own date calculation functions * Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide date manipulation capabilities (e.g., dayjs, luxon) Keep in mind that using a specialized library like Moment.js can often simplify code and reduce errors. However, it also introduces dependencies and potential overhead. In this specific benchmark, the focus is on comparing two simple approaches to create an ISO string from a Date object.
Related benchmarks:
parseInt vs. substring
imul vs standard
imul vs standard
encodeURIComponent performance short url
encodeURIComponent performance url 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?