Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('2020-09-11T03:49:36+02:00');
Date.parse
Date.parse('2020-09-11T03:49:36+02:00');
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:
Run details:
(Test run date:
4 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:149.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/149.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 149 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=627520" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Date.parse
7.5M/s
new Date
4.6M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Date.parse
7,478,580 Ops/sec
new Date
4,590,792 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches: `Date.parse()` and `new Date()`. The benchmark focuses on comparing these two methods when parsing ISO-formatted dates. **What is tested?** In this benchmark, we are testing the performance of: 1. **`Date.parse()`**: A static method that parses a string into a Date object. It is used to convert a string representing a date and time into a native JavaScript `Date` object. 2. **`new Date()`**: A constructor function that creates a new `Date` object from a given timestamp or ISO-formatted date string. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches when parsing an ISO-formatted date string: * `Date.parse('2020-09-11T03:49:36+02:00')` * `new Date('2020-09-11T03:49:36+02:00')` **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **`Date.parse()`**: * Pros: + Faster execution time, as it directly parses the date string into a native JavaScript `Date` object. + Can handle more complex date formats. * Cons: + Less intuitive for developers familiar with traditional `new Date()` construction. 2. **`new Date()`**: * Pros: + More intuitive and easier to understand, especially for developers who are accustomed to constructing dates manually. * Cons: + Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing the date string into a native JavaScript `Date` object. **Library used** The benchmark uses the built-in `Date` API in JavaScript, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. The `Date.parse()` method is implemented as a static method on the global `Date` object, while the `new Date()` constructor creates a new instance of the `Date` class. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark uses the ISO-formatted date string (`2020-09-11T03:49:36+02:00`) to test the parsing capabilities of both approaches. This format is widely supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines, but it may not be fully compatible with all older systems. **Other alternatives** If you want to explore other options or alternatives for date parsing in JavaScript, consider: 1. **`Date.parse()`**: A static method on the global `Date` object that parses a string into a native JavaScript `Date` object. 2. **`new Date()`**: A constructor function that creates a new `Date` object from a given timestamp or ISO-formatted date string. 3. **`moment.js`**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times, offering more advanced features and flexibility than the built-in `Date` API. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference as a developer.
Related benchmarks
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?