Benchmark: Intl.DateTimeFormat with and without init

Script Preparation code:

var dateOptions = { weekday: 'long', year: 'numeric', month: 'long', day: 'numeric' };
var dateTimeFormat = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', dateOptions);
var y = new Date('5/11/2018');

Tests:

With init
var z = dateTimeFormat.format(y);
Without init
var z = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', dateOptions).format(y);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With init
Without init

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
With init	1212545.2 Ops/sec
Without init	30302.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to creating an `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object:

1. Creating an instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` with specific options (`dateOptions`) using the `new` keyword.
2. Creating a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object without passing any options, but instead passing only the locale ('en-US').

**What are the pros and cons of each approach?**

**Approach 1: Creating an instance with specific options**

Pros:

* Provides more control over the formatting options used by the date formatter.
* Allows for better customization of the output format.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object with custom properties.
* Requires specifying all necessary options upfront, which can be cumbersome if only some options are needed.

**Approach 2: Creating without specific options**

Pros:

* Reduces the amount of code and configuration required.
* Can lead to faster performance, as fewer objects need to be created.

Cons:

* May result in default formatting options that don't meet the desired requirements.
* Requires careful consideration of the locale's built-in formatting options.

**Library used: Intl.DateTimeFormat**

The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object is a part of the Internationalization API (Intl) and provides a way to format dates according to specific languages, regions, or date formats. The library's purpose is to facilitate internationalized text handling, allowing developers to create localized date and time representations.

**Special JavaScript feature/syntax:**

The benchmark uses ES6+ syntax, specifically `const` and template literals (`\r\n`), which are supported by most modern browsers. No other advanced features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

For creating date formatters, alternative libraries or APIs can be explored:

1. Moment.js: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates.
2. dayjs: Another lightweight date manipulation library that provides a similar API to `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.
3. Custom implementation using DOMStringFormatter: The Intl API also provides an implementation of the `DOMStringFormatter` interface, which can be used as an alternative to `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or feature sets compared to `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.DateTimeFormat with and without init (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: With init vs Without init

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

With init

Without init

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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