Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
date formatter libraries
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
3846masa/fdate vs moment/moment vs moment/luxon vs taylorhakes/fecha vs date-fns/date-fns vs xx45/dayjs vs felixge/node-dateformat vs jonschlinkert/time-stamp
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.1/moment.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.2.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fecha/2.3.3/fecha.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/date-fns/1.29.0/date_fns.min.js"></script> <script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs"></script> <script src="https://wzrd.in/standalone/dateformat@latest"></script> <script src="https://wzrd.in/standalone/time-stamp@latest"></script> <script src="https://unpkg.com/fdate"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.__date__ = new Date(); window.__expected__ = '2000/01/06';
Tests:
3846masa/fdate
var actual = fdate`${'YYYY'}/${'MM'}/${'DD'}`(__date__); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
moment/moment
var actual = moment(__date__).format('YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
moment/luxon
var actual = luxon.DateTime.fromJSDate(__date__).toFormat('yyyy/MM/dd'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
taylorhakes/fecha
var actual = fecha.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
date-fns/date-fns
var actual = dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
xx45/dayjs
var actual = dayjs(__date__).format('YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
felixge/node-dateformat
var actual = dateformat(__date__, 'yyyy/mm/dd'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
jonschlinkert/time-stamp
var actual = timeStamp('YYYY/MM/DD', __date__); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (8)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
3846masa/fdate
moment/moment
moment/luxon
taylorhakes/fecha
date-fns/date-fns
xx45/dayjs
felixge/node-dateformat
jonschlinkert/time-stamp
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 dive into the world of date formatter microbenchmarks. **What is tested?** The provided JSON represents six individual test cases, each testing the performance of a different JavaScript library for formatting dates. The libraries being tested are: 1. `fdate` 2. `moment.js` 3. `luxon` 4. `fecha` (by Taylor Hakes) 5. `date-fns` 6. `dayjs` Each test case measures the execution time of formatting a date using the respective library. **Options compared** The different libraries being tested offer varying approaches to date formatting: 1. **Moment.js**: Uses a template string-based approach, where you specify the format as a string. 2. **Luxon**: Employs a more modern and flexible API, allowing for granular control over formatting options. 3. **Fecha** (by Taylor Hakes): Offers a simple, straightforward syntax for formatting dates. 4. **Date-fns**: Provides a more functional programming style, with an emphasis on utility functions. 5. **Dayjs**: Utilizes a simpler, more concise syntax, often referred to as "pipeable" or "fluent." **Pros and Cons of each approach** Here's a brief summary: 1. **Moment.js**: * Pros: Wide adoption, extensive documentation, and a large community. * Cons: Can be verbose, and its API has some quirks. 2. **Luxon**: * Pros: Modern design, flexible, and customizable. * Cons: Steeper learning curve due to the more functional programming style. 3. **Fecha** (by Taylor Hakes): * Pros: Simple, easy to use, and optimized for performance. * Cons: Limited community support compared to other libraries. 4. **Date-fns**: * Pros: Functional programming style, concise syntax, and a growing community. * Cons: May not be as well-known or widely adopted as other libraries. 5. **Dayjs**: * Pros: Simple, fast, and suitable for many use cases. * Cons: Relatively small community compared to more established libraries. **Benchmarking results** The provided benchmarking results show the execution times for each test case across different browsers and platforms. These results should help you understand the relative performance characteristics of each library in this specific context. Keep in mind that this is just a snapshot, and performance can vary depending on the specific use case, data size, and other factors. In conclusion, the choice of date formatter library depends on your project's requirements, personal preferences, and existing ecosystem.
Related benchmarks:
date format
date formatter libraries test
date formatter libraries 2021-01-31
DateTime vs Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?