Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date (with valueOf())
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf();
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: 1. `new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf()` 2. `Date.parse('01/01/2001')` Both approaches aim to convert a string representation of a date ('01/01/2001') into a JavaScript Date object and then extract its value. **Options compared:** The two options being tested are: A) Using the `new Date()` constructor with an argument (`new Date('01/01/2001').valueOf()`) B) Using the `Date.parse()` method (`Date.parse('01/01/2001')`) **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Option A (new Date()):** Pros: * More explicit and readable * Allows for easier maintenance and modification of date formats Cons: * May be slower due to the additional construction step * Requires careful consideration of date format parsing **Option B (Date.parse()):** Pros: * Faster execution, as it's a single function call * Less code, making it more concise Cons: * Less explicit and less readable, as the intent is not immediately clear * May lead to errors if the date format is incorrect or ambiguous **Library usage:** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `Date` and `Date.parse()` are built-in JavaScript methods. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other alternatives:** If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, you might consider adding additional options, such as: * Using a different date format (e.g., ISO 8601) * Incorporating locale-specific date formats * Comparing performance with other approaches, like using the `Date.parse()` method in conjunction with a library Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Date.parse and toString() vs new Date
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
Date.parse vs new Date().getTime()
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?