Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
luxon3 vs datefns
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
datefns vs luxon
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@3/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script> <script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
Tests:
datefns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
datefns
luxon
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
11 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=609689" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
datefns
1040148.3 Ops/sec
luxon
176120.2 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of two date parsing libraries: Luxon and Datefns. The test creates a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures how long it takes to parse an ISO-formatted date string using each library. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Luxon**: A popular JavaScript date and time library developed by Adam Wathan. 2. **Datefns**: A lightweight, modern JavaScript date library maintained by Igor Moummers. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Luxon** Pros: * Highly optimized for performance * Supports a wide range of date formats and features (e.g., timezone support) * Has a large community and is widely used in industry applications Cons: * Can be overwhelming to learn due to its feature-rich API * May have a higher memory footprint compared to Datefns **Datefns** Pros: * Extremely lightweight (~10KB) and easy to use * Simple, intuitive API * Supports most common date formatting needs Cons: * Limited feature set compared to Luxon * Not as widely adopted or maintained (although growing in popularity) **Library Usage** The test case uses both libraries, as specified in the benchmark definition json. The scripts are loaded via `<script>` tags from CDN URLs. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When choosing a date parsing library, consider the following factors: * Performance: If speed is critical, Luxon might be a better choice due to its optimization. * Feature set: Datefns is great for simple date formatting needs, while Luxon offers more advanced features (e.g., timezone support). * Community support: Luxon has an active community and is widely adopted in industry applications. **Alternatives** Other notable JavaScript date libraries include: 1. Moment.js: A popular library with a wide range of features and integrations. 2. Dateutil: A widely used library for date and time manipulation, but less optimized for performance than Luxon. 3. JSDATE: Another lightweight option with a simple API. In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript date parsing libraries: Luxon and Datefns. Luxon is optimized for performance and feature-rich, while Datefns is lightweight and easy to use. The choice ultimately depends on your specific needs and priorities.
Related benchmarks:
luxon 2 vs datefns
luxon vs datefns formatting
luxon 3.3.0 vs datefns
luxon vs datefns adding
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?