Benchmark: Intl.DateTimeFormat

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

without Intl.DateTimeFormat
var z = (x.getFullYear() === y.getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === y.getMonth() && x.getDate() === y.getDate());
with Intl.DateTimeFormat
var z = (dateTimeFormat.format(x) === dateTimeFormat.format(y));

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 40 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 34 runs

without Intl.DateTimeFormat

32.0M/s

with Intl.DateTimeFormat

587K/s

Fastest: without Intl.DateTimeFormat (54.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ without Intl.DateTimeFormat: 31,998,166 ops/sec
• with Intl.DateTimeFormat: 586,635 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

without Intl.DateTimeFormat

81.2M/s

with Intl.DateTimeFormat

592K/s

Fastest: without Intl.DateTimeFormat (137.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ without Intl.DateTimeFormat: 81,189,472 ops/sec
• with Intl.DateTimeFormat: 591,865 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without Intl.DateTimeFormat
with Intl.DateTimeFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:152.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/152.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 152 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

without Intl.DateTimeFormat

345.9M/s

with Intl.DateTimeFormat

848K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ without Intl.DateTimeFormat	345,866,432 Ops/sec
with Intl.DateTimeFormat	847,800 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between comparing two dates using traditional `Date` methods versus using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Without Intl.DateTimeFormat**: This option uses traditional `Date` methods to compare the years, months, and days of two dates.
2. **With Intl.DateTimeFormat**: This option uses the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API to format both dates and then compares the formatted strings.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Without Intl.DateTimeFormat**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and familiar method for date comparison.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to manual calculations and string comparisons.
* **With Intl.DateTimeFormat**:
	+ Pros: More readable and maintainable code, as the formatting is handled by a standardized API. This approach can also provide additional benefits like locale-specific formatting.
	+ Cons: Requires the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API, which might not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` library provides a way to format dates according to a specified locale. It is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API ( Intl ) and allows developers to standardize date formatting across different devices, browsers, and regions.

In this benchmark, `Intl.DateTimeFormat` is used to format both dates before comparing them, ensuring that the comparison is locale-agnostic and takes into account the specified date options.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's included in the ECMAScript standard. It uses only standard JavaScript and the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Other Alternatives**

If the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API is not available or supported, alternative methods for comparing dates could include:

1. Using other formatting libraries like Moment.js.
2. Implementing custom date formatting logic using string manipulation and regular expressions.
3. Utilizing browser-specific features like WebAssembly's built-in date handling.

However, these alternatives might not provide the same level of standardization, readability, or maintainability as `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.

**Benchmarking Considerations**

When benchmarking JavaScript performance, it's essential to consider factors like:

1. **Browser Support**: Ensure that the benchmark runs on a range of browsers and versions.
2. **Device Platform**: Test on various devices (desktop, mobile) to account for differences in hardware and software.
3. **Operating System**: Run benchmarks on multiple operating systems (Windows, macOS, Linux) to ensure platform-agnostic results.
4. **Network Conditions**: If running online benchmarks, simulate different network conditions (e.g., high latency, slow speeds) to stress the JavaScript engine.

By considering these factors, you can gather more accurate and representative benchmarking data for your specific use case.

Intl.DateTimeFormat (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing 2 dates with Intl.DateTimeFormat vs using Date.get* methods

Comparing performance of: `without Intl.DateTimeFormat vs with Intl.DateTimeFormat`

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

without Intl.DateTimeFormat

with Intl.DateTimeFormat

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 40 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 34 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Intl.DateTimeFormat (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing 2 dates with Intl.DateTimeFormat vs using Date.get* methods

Comparing performance of: without Intl.DateTimeFormat vs with Intl.DateTimeFormat

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

without Intl.DateTimeFormat

with Intl.DateTimeFormat

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 40 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 34 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `without Intl.DateTimeFormat vs with Intl.DateTimeFormat`