Benchmark: moment vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

moment
const now = moment().valueOf()
native
const now = new Date().valueOf()

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment	2014127.9 Ops/sec
native	4413632.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore the JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches to calculating the current timestamp: Moment.js, a popular JavaScript library for working with dates, and the native JavaScript Date object.

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches in calculating the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC).

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Moment.js**: A JavaScript library for working with dates and times. Moment.js provides a simple and intuitive API for formatting, parsing, and manipulating dates.
2. **Native JavaScript Date object**: The built-in JavaScript date object that can be used to represent a specific point in time.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Moment.js:**

Pros:

* Provides a more intuitive and human-friendly API for working with dates
* Supports various date formats and locales
* Can handle complex date calculations, such as calculating the difference between two dates

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to the creation of an object, which can slow down performance
* May not be optimized for JavaScript engines

**Native JavaScript Date object:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and compact, with no additional overhead
* Optimized for JavaScript engines and provides direct access to the underlying timestamp value

Cons:

* Requires manual handling of date formats and locales
* Can be less intuitive than using a library like Moment.js

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines, such as V8 (used by Chrome), have some built-in optimizations for date-related operations.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries to Moment.js, some popular options include:

* Luxon: A modern and lightweight library for working with dates and times.
* Date-fns: A set of high-quality utility functions for working with dates and times.
* js-joda: A Java-based date and time library that has a JavaScript wrapper.

If you prefer not to use a library, you can also consider using a simple timestamp calculation like this:
```javascript
const now = Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000);
```
This approach is lightweight and compact but may require more manual handling of dates and locales.

In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance of two approaches to calculating the current timestamp: Moment.js and the native JavaScript Date object. The choice between these two options depends on your specific use case and priorities, such as ease of use, performance, and compatibility with different browsers or environments.

Related benchmarks:

moment vs native (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):