Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date vs Moment get timestamp
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Moment vs Date
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment/2.30.1/moment.js"></script>
Tests:
Moment
moment('2024-02-03T23:12:00').unix();
Date
(new Date('2024-02-03T23:12:00')).getTime();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Moment
Date
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/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=517883" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
Moment
278072.5 Ops/sec
Date
3648056.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between two JavaScript libraries: Moment.js and the built-in `Date` object in JavaScript. Specifically, it's measuring how long each library takes to get the timestamp (number of seconds since January 1, 1970) from a date string. **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. 2. **Built-in `Date` object in JavaScript**: The native JavaScript object used to represent dates and times. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Moment.js:** Pros: * Provides a more intuitive and user-friendly API for working with dates and times. * Offers features like formatting, parsing, and timezone support that are useful in many applications. Cons: * Adds overhead due to the library's implementation. * May not be optimized for performance, especially when used extensively. **Built-in `Date` object:** Pros: * Lightweight and efficient, as it's a native JavaScript object. * Optimized for performance, making it suitable for high-performance applications. Cons: * Can be less intuitive to use, requiring more manual calculations and manipulations. **Other considerations:** * The test uses the latest version of Moment.js (2.30.1) and Chrome 123 browser, which may impact the results. * The `Html Preparation Code` includes a script tag that loads Moment.js from a CDN, ensuring that it's available for testing purposes. **Library usage:** Moment.js is used in one test case (`"Benchmark Definition": "moment('2024-02-03T23:12:00').unix();"`), which measures the time it takes to get the timestamp using Moment.js. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It only focuses on the performance difference between two libraries. **Alternatives:** If you want to create similar benchmarks for other date and time libraries, you could try: 1. Luxon.js (a modern, lightweight alternative to Moment.js) 2. Day.js (another popular date and time library with a strong focus on performance) 3. Date-fns (a small, lightweight library that provides a set of utility functions for working with dates) These alternatives would allow you to compare their performance against the built-in `Date` object in JavaScript or other libraries like Moment.js. Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net's benchmarking framework is designed specifically for JavaScript microbenchmarks, so you may need to adapt your test setup and script preparation code to fit its requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Date vs Moment
Date.now() vs Moment()
Creating Date vs Moment
Date vs Moment test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?