Benchmark: format time moment vs JS

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 nbSeconds = 134;

Tests:

Moment
return moment .utc(moment.duration(nbSeconds, 'seconds').asMilliseconds()) .format('HH:mm:ss')
JS
var sec_num = parseInt(nbSeconds, 10); var hours = Math.floor(sec_num / 3600); var minutes = Math.floor((sec_num - (hours * 3600)) / 60); var seconds = sec_num - (hours * 3600) - (minutes * 60); if (hours < 10) {hours = "0"+hours;} if (minutes < 10) {minutes = "0"+minutes;} if (seconds < 10) {seconds = "0"+seconds;} return nbSeconds;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Moment
JS

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Moment	1126108.9 Ops/sec
JS	60369216.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to format time: using the Moment.js library (`moment`) versus native JavaScript code (`JS`). The test compares these two approaches on different devices (desktop) and browsers (Firefox 78).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
2. **Native JavaScript Code** (`JS`): Using only standard JavaScript functions to format time.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Moment.js**

Pros:

* High-level, intuitive API makes it easy to work with dates and times.
* Reduces the risk of formatting errors due to manual calculation.
* Well-maintained and widely adopted library.

Cons:

* Performance might be slower compared to native JavaScript code due to additional overhead (e.g., function calls).
* Requires an additional library download ( Moment-timezone.js for accurate timezone handling).

**Native JavaScript Code (`JS`)**

Pros:

* Native performance, potentially faster than using a library.
* Only requires the standard JavaScript library.

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone code due to manual calculations.
* Risk of formatting errors if not implemented correctly.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Moment.js is used with its `moment-timezone` extension for accurate timezone handling. The Moment-timezone library adds support for timezone-aware dates and times.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases. They focus on the performance comparison between using a library (`Moment.js`) versus native code (`JS`).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using other date and time libraries (e.g., DayPilot.js).
* Implementing custom date and time formatting using a different approach (e.g., using Unicode escape sequences).
* Comparing performance with other programming languages or frameworks.

For this specific benchmark, the focus is on comparing the performance of Moment.js versus native JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

format time moment vs JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Moment vs JS

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Moment

JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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