Pros of Moment.js

• Moment.js provides a comprehensive set of features for working with dates and times, including parsing, formatting, manipulation, and localization.
• The library has a large and active community, with a wide range of plugins and extensions available.
• Moment.js is highly customizable, allowing developers to configure the library to suit their specific needs.

Cons of Moment.js

• Moment.js has a relatively large file size, which can impact the performance of web applications, especially on mobile devices.
• The library has been criticized for its reliance on mutable state, which can make it more difficult to reason about and test.
• Moment.js is not actively maintained, and the project's maintainers have recommended using alternative libraries like Luxon or date-fns for new projects.

Code Comparison

Moment.js:

const moment = require('moment');

const now = moment();
console.log(now.format('MMMM Do YYYY, h:mm:ss a')); // Output: April 12th 2023, 3:30:00 PM

node-dateformat:

const dateFormat = require('dateformat');

const now = new Date();
console.log(dateFormat(now, 'mmmm dS, yyyy, h:MM:ss TT')); // Output: April 12th, 2023, 3:30:00 PM

Both libraries provide similar functionality for formatting dates and times, but the syntax and API differ slightly.

Pros of date-fns/date-fns

• Comprehensive Functionality: date-fns provides a wide range of date and time manipulation functions, covering a broad set of use cases.
• Modular Design: date-fns is designed in a modular way, allowing developers to import only the functions they need, reducing bundle size.
• Extensive Documentation: date-fns has excellent documentation, including detailed examples and usage guides.

Cons of date-fns/date-fns

• Larger Bundle Size: Despite its modular design, date-fns can still result in a larger bundle size compared to node-dateformat, especially if only a few functions are needed.
• Slower Performance: Some date-fns functions may be slower than their node-dateformat counterparts, particularly for simple date formatting tasks.
• Dependency on Lodash: date-fns relies on the Lodash library for some utility functions, which may be a concern for developers who want to minimize dependencies.

Code Comparison

node-dateformat:

const dateformat = require('dateformat');
const now = new Date();
console.log(dateformat(now, 'yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:ss'));

date-fns:

const { format } = require('date-fns');
const now = new Date();
console.log(format(now, 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss'));

Pros of iamkun/dayjs

• Smaller Size: dayjs is significantly smaller in size compared to node-dateformat, making it a more lightweight option for projects with size constraints.
• Intuitive API: dayjs provides a more intuitive and user-friendly API, making it easier to work with date and time operations.
• Extensive Functionality: dayjs offers a wide range of functionality, including support for internationalization, time zones, and various date/time manipulation methods.

Cons of iamkun/dayjs

• Dependency on Moment.js: dayjs is designed to be a lightweight alternative to Moment.js, but it still relies on some Moment.js functionality, which may be a concern for some users.
• Limited Customization: dayjs has a more limited set of customization options compared to node-dateformat, which offers a more flexible and extensible approach to date formatting.
• Potential Performance Impact: while dayjs is generally faster than Moment.js, it may still have a slightly higher performance impact compared to node-dateformat, especially for simple date formatting tasks.

Code Comparison

node-dateformat:

const dateFormat = require('dateformat');
const now = new Date();
console.log(dateFormat(now, 'yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:ss'));

dayjs:

const dayjs = require('dayjs');
const now = dayjs();
console.log(now.format('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss'));

Both examples achieve the same result of formatting the current date and time, but the dayjs version has a more concise and intuitive API.

Pros of Fecha

• Smaller Size: Fecha is a smaller library, weighing in at around 2KB gzipped, compared to node-dateformat's 5KB.
• Faster Performance: Fecha is generally faster than node-dateformat in date formatting operations.
• Simpler API: Fecha has a more straightforward API, with fewer options and a more focused feature set.

Cons of Fecha

• Limited Functionality: Fecha has a more limited set of features compared to node-dateformat, which offers a wider range of formatting options and locales.
• Fewer Locales: Fecha currently supports a smaller set of locales compared to node-dateformat.
• Newer Library: Fecha is a newer library, with a smaller community and potentially less mature development compared to the more established node-dateformat.

Code Comparison

node-dateformat:

const dateFormat = require('dateformat');
const now = new Date();
console.log(dateFormat(now, 'yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:ss'));

Fecha:

const fecha = require('fecha');
const now = new Date();
console.log(fecha.format(now, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss'));

The main difference in the code is the API used for formatting the date. node-dateformat uses a string-based format, while Fecha uses a more concise, character-based format.