Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toto toto
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
datefns vs substr
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/date-fns@2.9.0/index.min.js"></script>
Tests:
datefns
const a = '2012-01-01'; console.log(dateFns.format(dateFns.parseISO(a),'yyyy'));
substr
const a = '2012-01-01';console.log(a.substring(0,4));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
datefns
substr
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Measuring the performance of JavaScript code can be a complex task, and MeasuringThat.net provides a simple yet effective way to do so. Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: 1. `datefns`: This test case measures the performance of using the `date-fns` library, specifically the `format` function from the `date-fns.parseISO` method. 2. `substr`: This test case measures the performance of using JavaScript's built-in `substring` method. **Options compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: * Using a specific JavaScript library (`datefns`) to perform date manipulation * Using the built-in JavaScript `substring` method for substring extraction **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Using `date-fns`:** * Pros: + Provides a more robust and efficient way to work with dates, especially when dealing with complex date formats. + Reduces the likelihood of errors due to manual parsing of dates. * Cons: + Introduces additional dependencies (the `date-fns` library) that may impact performance or increase bundle size. + May require more setup and configuration for users who are not familiar with the library. 2. **Using `substring`:** * Pros: + Lightweight and easy to use, as it's a built-in method in JavaScript. + No additional dependencies required. * Cons: + Can be slower than using a dedicated date library like `date-fns` for complex date operations. + May require more manual effort and error-prone parsing of dates. **Library used:** The `date-fns` library is used to provide a robust and efficient way to work with dates in JavaScript. It offers various functions for parsing, formatting, and manipulating dates, making it a convenient choice for developers who need to handle date-related tasks frequently. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The `substring` method is a standard built-in function in JavaScript, and the use of `date-fns` library is simply compared against it. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative date libraries or methods to perform date manipulation, some popular options include: * `moment.js`: A widely used date library that offers more features than `date-fns`, but also has a larger bundle size. * `Date-fns` variants like `date-fns-locale`: Offer locale-specific formatting and parsing capabilities. * `Intl.DateTimeFormat`: A built-in JavaScript API for working with dates and times, which can be used to format and parse dates. Keep in mind that the choice of library or method ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.
Related benchmarks:
Modern Date Libraries
DateTime vs Date
Time libraries simple format
dayjs vs luxon vs js-joda vs date-fns (manipulating)
dayjs vs luxon currentDate
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?