Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
new Intl.DateTimeFormat("ja-JP-u-ca-japanese").format(new Date())
Date().ISOString()
new Date().toISOString()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
Date().ISOString()
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 and its options. **Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: using `Date()` with `.toISOString()` method and using `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` to format dates in Japanese culture (ja-JP-u-ca-japanese). **Options compared** 1. **`Date().toISOString()`**: This approach uses the built-in `Date` object and its `.toISOString()` method to generate a string representation of the date. 2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat()`**: This approach uses the Internationalization API (`Intl`) to format dates in a specific culture (ja-JP-u-ca-japanese). **Pros and Cons** 1. **`Date().toISOString()`**: * Pros: Simple, widely supported, and fast execution. * Cons: May not provide the desired cultural formatting, as it uses UTC time zone by default. 2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat()`**: * Pros: Provides accurate cultural formatting, handles date and time zones correctly, and is more flexible than `Date().toISOString()`. * Cons: May be slower due to the additional overhead of internationalization. **Library used** The library used in this benchmark is `Intl`, which provides support for internationalization and localization. Specifically, `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` uses the ICU (International Components for Unicode) library under the hood. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax** None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that `Date()` and `.toISOString()` are standard features of the JavaScript language. **Other alternatives** If you need to format dates with more complex cultural requirements, you might consider using other libraries or APIs, such as: * `moment.js`: A popular date library for JavaScript that provides more advanced formatting options. * `dayjs`: Another popular date library that offers a simpler API and faster performance. * Custom internationalization solutions, depending on the specific requirements of your project. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and support for various cultural formats.
Related benchmarks:
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs custom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?