Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date ISO
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('2022-09-22T08:18:11.000');
Date.parse
Date.parse('2022-09-22T08:18:11.000');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and provide an overview of what's being tested. **What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing two different ways to create a new `Date` object in JavaScript: using the `new Date()` constructor and parsing a string representation of a date with `Date.parse()`. The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of these two approaches. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of: 1. **`new Date()`**: This method creates a new `Date` object by calling the `Date` constructor with a timestamp argument (e.g., `'2022-09-22T08:18:11.000'`). The engine will interpret this string as a Unix timestamp and create a `Date` object accordingly. 2. **`Date.parse()`**: This method parses a string representation of a date and returns the resulting timestamp. **Pros and cons** * **`new Date()`**: + Pros: More intuitive and readable, allows for easy parsing of dates with specific formatting (e.g., ISO 8601). + Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a `Date` object and interpreting the string as a timestamp. * **`Date.parse()`**: + Pros: Faster, since it only needs to parse the date string without creating an intermediate `Date` object. + Cons: Less readable, requires careful consideration of formatting options (e.g., allowing for optional timezone offset) and may throw errors if the input is malformed. In general, `new Date()` is more intuitive but might be slower due to overhead. On the other hand, `Date.parse()` is faster but less readable. **Library and purpose** Neither of these methods uses a library or an external dependency. The `Date` class and its methods are part of the built-in JavaScript API. **Special JS features or syntax** None of the methods in this benchmark use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2022. **Other alternatives** To test performance differences between these two approaches, other benchmarks might consider: 1. Creating a large array of dates using `new Date()` and iterating over it to measure performance. 2. Using a different string formatting library (e.g., Moment.js) or implementing custom parsing logic for `Date.parse()`. 3. Comparing the performance of these methods with other date-related functions, such as `Date.now()`, `getTime()`, or `getUTCTimezone()`. Keep in mind that these additional benchmarks would require careful consideration of formatting options, error handling, and performance optimization to ensure accurate results.
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?