Benchmark: Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date
Date.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 27 days 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

Test name	Executions per second
new Date	4590792.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse	7478580.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**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:

Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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