Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('2024-01-18T13:28:25.000000Z')
Date.parse
Date.parse('2024-01-18T13:28:25.000000Z')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
6 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=618647" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
10755336.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse
12767108.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the provided JavaScript benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches: using `Date.parse()` and creating a new `Date` object with an ISO 8601 formatted string. The test is designed to measure which approach is faster, but it also touches on the pros and cons of each method. **Options Compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **Date.parse()**: This method parses a string into a `Date` object. It's commonly used when working with dates in strings. 2. **new Date(string)**: This method creates a new `Date` object from a given string. In this benchmark, the string is an ISO 8601 formatted date. **Pros and Cons** **Date.parse()**: Pros: * Generally faster than creating a new `Date` object because it's a built-in function optimized for performance. * Easy to use and doesn't require parsing a date string. Cons: * Can be brittle if the input string is not in the expected format. * Returns a number with milliseconds, which might not always be convenient. **new Date(string)**: Pros: * Provides more control over how the date is parsed (e.g., you can specify the locale). * Returns a `Date` object with methods like `getTime()`, `getUTCDate()`, etc. Cons: * Can be slower than `Date.parse()` because it creates an intermediate object and then returns its value. * Requires more code to achieve the same result as `Date.parse()`. **Other Considerations** In modern JavaScript, using `new Date(string)` is generally preferred over `Date.parse()` when working with dates in strings. This is because `new Date(string)` can handle a wider range of date formats and provides more control over how the date is parsed. However, if you're working with a specific format that's easily parseable by `Date.parse()`, it might be faster. **Library/ Library Purpose** There are no libraries used in this benchmark. The tests only rely on built-in JavaScript functions. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a simple comparison of two common approaches to working with dates in JavaScript. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative ways to parse dates in JavaScript, some options include: * Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API to parse and format dates. * Utilizing third-party libraries like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more features and control over date parsing. However, these alternatives are typically used when working with complex date formatting requirements or when you need more advanced date calculations. In this benchmark, the comparison is limited to simple date parsing using `Date.parse()` and creating a new `Date` object.
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date ISO
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?