Benchmark: Date.toLocaleDateString vs Date.toDateString

Tests:

Date().toDateString()
const x = new Date().toDateString();
Date().toLocaleDateString()
const x = new Date().toLocaleDateString();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date().toDateString()
Date().toLocaleDateString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:143.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/143.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date().toDateString()	8087737.0 Ops/sec
Date().toLocaleDateString()	1067822.9 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to formatting dates in JavaScript:

1. `Date.toDateString()`: This method returns a string representing the date in the format "Day, Month DD Year" (e.g., "Sun Mar 14 2022").
2. `Date.toLocaleDateString()`: This method returns a string representing the date in a locale-dependent format (e.g., "March 14, 2022" for en-US locale).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

A) Using `new Date()` to create a new date object and then calling `toDateString()` or `toLocaleDateString()` on it.

B) Using the `Date` constructor to create a new date object directly (e.g., `const x = new Date('2022-03-14T00:00:00.000Z')`) and then calling `toDateString()` or `toLocaleDateString()` on it.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

A) Using `new Date()`:

Pros:

* Simpler to write and understand.
* Works well with most browsers.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new date object.
* May not work as expected in some edge cases (e.g., timezone issues).

B) Using `Date` constructor:

Pros:

* Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating a new date object.
* Works well with most modern browsers that support the `Date` constructor.

Cons:

* Requires more effort to write and understand (since you need to specify the date in a format that can be parsed).
* May not work as expected in some edge cases (e.g., timezone issues).

**Other considerations**

When using `Date` constructor, it's essential to ensure that the date string is correctly formatted to avoid parsing errors. For example, if you're using the ISO 8601 format (`YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.SSSZ`), you'll need to specify the timezone offset.

**Library used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond the built-in `Date` object and its methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. However, if we were to expand this benchmark to include other date formatting options, it might involve using libraries like Moment.js or Luxon.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarks or testing frameworks for JavaScript performance, some popular options include:

1. Browserbench: A benchmarking framework developed by Mozilla that allows you to run multiple tests on different browsers.
2. jsPerf: A simple benchmarking tool that allows you to compare the performance of two scripts in different browsers.
3. BenchmarkJS: A lightweight, modular benchmarking framework for JavaScript.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have slightly different use cases and requirements than MeasureThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

Date.toLocaleDateString vs Date.toDateString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date().toDateString() vs Date().toLocaleDateString()

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date().toDateString()

Date().toLocaleDateString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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