Benchmark: luxon3 vs datefns

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
datefns
luxon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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

datefns

1.0M/s

luxon

176K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ datefns	1,040,148 Ops/sec
luxon	176,120 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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.

luxon3 vs datefns (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `datefns vs luxon`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

datefns

luxon

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

luxon3 vs datefns (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: datefns vs luxon

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

datefns

luxon

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `datefns vs luxon`