Benchmark: Moment format vs new Date().toLocaleDateString()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment/2.7.0/moment.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment-timezone/0.2.2/builds/moment-timezone-with-data.js"></script></script>

Script Preparation code:

var dateObject = new Date('2016-11-03T12:00:00Z');
var timezone = 'Australia/Perth';
var format = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss';

Tests:

Moment
var dateString = moment().format();
Offset
var newDateObject = new Date().toLocaleDateString();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Moment
Offset

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:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Moment	891086.4 Ops/sec
Offset	1396292.8 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 definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares two approaches for formatting dates:

1. `moment().format()`: This uses the Moment.js library to format the current date.
2. `new Date().toLocaleDateString()`: This uses the built-in JavaScript `Date` object and its `toLocaleDateString()` method to format the current date.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
* **Built-in JavaScript `Date` object**: The native JavaScript API for working with dates and times.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Moment.js**:
	+ Pros:
		- More powerful and flexible than the built-in `Date` object.
		- Offers a wide range of formatting options.
		- Supports internationalization and timezones out of the box.
	+ Cons:
		- Additional library dependency required.
		- May have a larger performance overhead due to the extra function call.
* **Built-in JavaScript `Date` object**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional library dependency required.
		- Typically faster and more lightweight than Moment.js.
	+ Cons:
		- Limited formatting options compared to Moment.js.
		- May not support internationalization and timezones as seamlessly.

**Library: Moment.js**

Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides a wide range of features, including:

* Formatting: Supports over 40 different formats, including full date strings, ISO format, and more.
* Internationalization: Supports over 30 languages and regions out of the box.
* Timezones: Supports timezones using the IANA timezone database.

Moment.js is widely used in web development for tasks such as formatting dates, calculating time differences, and handling timezones.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to date formatting: Moment.js and the built-in `Date` object.

**Other Alternatives**

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

* Luxon: A modern JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
* DayPilot: A powerful JavaScript library for building date-based UI components.
* jsdate: A lightweight JavaScript library for working with dates.

Keep in mind that the choice of library often depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Moment format vs new Date().toLocaleDateString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Moment vs Offset

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Moment

Offset

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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