Benchmark: MomentJS vs Vanilla JS Time incrementing and using as dictionary key

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testDate = new Date();
var testMoment = moment();

var INTERVAL = 15;
var MILLISSECONDS_PER_MINUTE = 60000;

Tests:

Moment
console.log(testMoment.format("YYYYMMDDHHmm")); testMoment.add(INTERVAL, "minutes");
Native
const testDateMilliseconds = testDate.getTime(); console.log(testDateMilliseconds); testDate = new Date(testDateMilliseconds + INTERVAL * MILLISSECONDS_PER_MINUTE);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Moment
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Moment	96208.2 Ops/sec
Native	166711.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches to increment time using JavaScript:

1. **Moment.js**: A popular library for working with dates and times in JavaScript.
2. **Vanilla JS (Native)**: Using only built-in JavaScript features without any external libraries.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Incrementing time using Moment.js (`testMoment.add(INTERVAL, "minutes")`)
* Updating a `Date` object using vanilla JavaScript (`testDate = new Date(testDateMilliseconds + INTERVAL * MILLISSECONDS_PER_MINUTE)`)

**Pros and Cons**

**Moment.js**

Pros:

* Provides a convenient API for working with dates and times.
* Simplifies the process of incrementing time.

Cons:

* Introduces an additional library dependency, which can add overhead to execution.
* May have performance implications due to the added complexity.

**Vanilla JS (Native)**

Pros:

* Uses only built-in JavaScript features, avoiding external dependencies.
* Can potentially be faster since it doesn't introduce additional libraries.

Cons:

* Requires more manual effort and logic to increment time correctly.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers factors like device platform, operating system, and browser version. These variables can affect the execution performance of the tests due to differences in JavaScript engine optimizations or hardware capabilities.

**Library: Moment.js**

Moment.js is a widely used library for working with dates and times in JavaScript. It provides a convenient API for formatting dates, calculating time intervals, and performing date arithmetic. In this benchmark, Moment.js is used to increment the test date by a specified interval (`INTERVAL`) using the `add()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `format()` method of Moment.js to format the test date as "YYYYMMDDHHmm". This feature allows users to specify a custom date format, which can be useful in various applications. However, it's not a special JavaScript feature per se, but rather an API provided by the Moment.js library.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or approaches for working with dates and times in JavaScript, here are some options:

* **Lux**: A high-performance date and time library that provides similar functionality to Moment.js.
* **Dayjs**: Another popular date and time library that offers a more streamlined API than Moment.js.
* **Vanilla JS alternatives**: If you're looking for alternative approaches to incrementing time using only built-in JavaScript features, you can explore options like using `Date.now()` and manipulating the timestamp directly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more manual effort and logic to implement correctly.

Related benchmarks:

MomentJS vs Vanilla JS Time incrementing and using as dictionary key (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Moment vs Native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Moment

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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