Benchmark: date utils - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs@1.8.21/dayjs.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2023-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

date-fns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds); window.datefns.format(new Date(), "mm-dd-yyyy");
day.js
dayjs(window.ds) dayjs().format("MM-DD-YYYY")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
date-fns
day.js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
date-fns	197334.9 Ops/sec
day.js	258759.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's happening in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The website `MeasureThat.net` is used to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. A microbenchmark is a small test that measures the performance of a specific piece of code or library.

In this case, we have two individual test cases:

1. "date-fns"
2. "day.js"

**Options being compared**

The options being compared are two different libraries for working with dates in JavaScript:

* `datefns`: A popular date and time utility library developed by Dateutil (https://github.com/date-io/date-fns).
* `day.js`: A lightweight, easy-to-use library for working with dates and times (https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* `datefns`:
	+ Pros:
		- More features and functionality compared to day.js.
		- Well-maintained and actively updated by its maintainer, Dateutil.
		- Can be used for more complex date-related tasks beyond simple formatting.
	+ Cons:
		- Possibly overkill for simple use cases like formatting a single date.
		- May introduce unnecessary overhead due to its feature set.
* `day.js`:
	+ Pros:
		- Extremely lightweight and minimalistic, making it suitable for small projects or when every byte counts.
		- Easy to learn and use, especially for simple date formatting tasks.
		- Less chance of introducing unnecessary complexity or overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- Fewer features compared to datefns, which might limit its usefulness for more complex date-related tasks.

**Library usage**

Both libraries are used in the benchmark:

* `datefns` is imported via a script tag in the HTML preparation code: `<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>`
* `day.js` is imported via another script tag in the HTML preparation code: `<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs@1.8.21/dayjs.min.js"></script>`

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark, other than possibly using ES6 imports (not explicitly shown).

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries for date and time manipulation in JavaScript, here are a few:

* `moment.js`: A popular library for working with dates and times that's been around since 2011.
* `luxon`: Another lightweight library for working with dates and times that's gaining popularity.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to choose the one that best fits your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

date utils (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: date-fns vs day.js

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

date-fns

day.js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):