Benchmark: FormattedDateString

Tests:

toISOString
function getFormattedDateString(date) { const timezoneOffset = -date.getTimezoneOffset(); const utcDate = new Date(date.getTime() + timezoneOffset * 60 * 1000); const sign = timezoneOffset >= 0 ? '+' : '-'; const paddingFormat = '00'; const hourOffset = (paddingFormat + (timezoneOffset / 60)).slice(-paddingFormat.length); const secondOffset = (paddingFormat + (timezoneOffset % 60)).slice(-paddingFormat.length); const timezoneText = `${sign}${hourOffset}:${secondOffset}`; return utcDate.toISOString().split('Z')[0] + timezoneText; } getFormattedDateString(new Date());
Parsed
function getFormattedDateString2(date) { const format = '00'; const year = (format + date.getFullYear()).slice(-format.length); const month = (format + (date.getMonth() + 1)).slice(-format.length); const day = (format + date.getDate()).slice(-format.length); const hour = (format + date.getHours()).slice(-format.length); const min = (format + date.getMinutes()).slice(-format.length); const sec = (format + date.getSeconds()).slice(-format.length); const msec = (format + date.getMilliseconds()).slice(-format.length); const timezoneOffset = -date.getTimezoneOffset(); const sign = timezoneOffset >= 0 ? '+' : '-'; const hourOffset = (format + (timezoneOffset / 60)).slice(-format.length); const secondOffset = (format + (timezoneOffset % 60)).slice(-format.length); //const offsetText = `${sign}${hourOffset}:${secondOffset}`; return `${year}-${month}-${day}T${hour}:${min}:${sec}.${msec}${sign}${hourOffset}:${secondOffset}`; } getFormattedDateString2(new Date());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toISOString
Parsed

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two different approaches to formatting dates in JavaScript. The first approach, `getFormattedDateString`, returns a formatted date string with the timezone offset included in the format. The second approach, `getFormattedDateString2`, parses the date into its individual components (year, month, day, hour, minute, second, and millisecond) before constructing the final formatted string.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`getFormattedDateString`**: This approach constructs the formatted date string directly from the input `date` object, including the timezone offset.
2. **`getFormattedDateString2`**: This approach parses the date into its individual components and then constructs the final formatted string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **`getFormattedDateString`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and maintain, as it only involves a single function call.
		+ Less chance of errors due to parsing individual date components.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the need to calculate the timezone offset and construct the final string in a single operation.
2. **`getFormattedDateString2`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster, as it only involves simple arithmetic operations on the parsed date components.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex and harder to read and maintain, due to the need to parse individual date components.

**Other considerations**

1. **Library usage**: Both approaches use built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Date`, `toISOString()`) without any external libraries.
2. **Special JS feature or syntax**: Neither approach uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would make it less accessible to software engineers with varying levels of expertise.

**Alternative approaches**

Other possible approaches could include:

1. **Using a dedicated date formatting library**, such as Moment.js, which provides a more concise and readable way of formatting dates.
2. **Using a templating engine**, such as Handlebars or Mustache, to generate the formatted date string from a template string.

In summary, MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two different approaches to formatting dates in JavaScript: one that constructs the final formatted string directly from the input `date` object (approach 1), and another that parses the date into its individual components before constructing the final formatted string (approach 2). The results will help determine which approach is faster and more efficient for real-world use cases.

Related benchmarks:

FormattedDateString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toISOString vs Parsed

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toISOString

Parsed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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