Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Moment format vs new Date().toISOString, no ms (moment 2.24)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Moment vs native
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.24.0/moment.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Moment
var rfc3339 = moment().format();
native
var rfc3339 = new Date().toISOString().replace(/\.\d{3}/, '')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Moment
native
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for formatting dates in a specific format: Moment.js (a popular date formatting library) versus native JavaScript. **Options compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides a range of methods for formatting, parsing, and manipulating dates. 2. **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript functions for working with dates and times, such as `Date` and its methods like `toISOString()`. **Pros and cons** Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach: **Moment.js** Pros: * Highly customizable and flexible date formatting options * Supports multiple date formats, including ISO 8601 (RFC 3339) * Often used in production code due to its popularity and wide adoption Cons: * Can be slower than native JavaScript due to the overhead of a library * Requires an additional dependency on Moment.js, which can add complexity to dependencies management **Native JavaScript** Pros: * Fast execution speed, as it only involves built-in JavaScript functions * No additional dependency required, simplifying dependencies management Cons: * Less customizable than Moment.js, with limited formatting options * May not support all date formats, especially edge cases like UTC offsets **Library usage** In the benchmark preparation code, a script tag is used to include the Moment.js library. This is necessary because the `moment()` function in the benchmark definition relies on Moment.js for its functionality. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing two approaches for date formatting: using a library (Moment.js) versus native JavaScript. **Other alternatives** For those interested in exploring alternative date formatting libraries, some popular options include: * Date-fns: A modern and widely adopted date formatting library that aims to be faster and more customizable than Moment.js. * Luxon: A high-performance date and time library developed by the same team behind Moment.js.
Related benchmarks:
Date vs moment 1238uu
Date vs Moment Formatt
MomentJS vs Native ISO String
MomentJS vs Native ISO String Fixed Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?