Pros of date-fns

• Comprehensive set of date manipulation functions
• Modular architecture allowing for tree-shaking
• Extensive browser and environment support

Cons of date-fns

• Larger bundle size due to its extensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve with more functions to understand
• Potentially overkill for simple date formatting tasks

Code Comparison

date-fns:

import { format } from 'date-fns'

const formattedDate = format(new Date(), 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss')
console.log(formattedDate) // Output: 2023-05-10 14:30:45

tinydate:

import tinydate from 'tinydate'

const stamp = tinydate('{YYYY}-{MM}-{DD} {HH}:{mm}:{ss}')
console.log(stamp(new Date())) // Output: 2023-05-10 14:30:45

Summary

date-fns offers a comprehensive suite of date manipulation functions with excellent browser support and a modular architecture. However, it comes with a larger bundle size and a steeper learning curve. tinydate, on the other hand, provides a lightweight solution for simple date formatting tasks but lacks the extensive functionality of date-fns. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project, with date-fns being more suitable for complex date operations and tinydate for basic formatting requirements.

Pros of Moment

• Extensive feature set for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates
• Robust internationalization support with locales for many languages
• Well-established library with a large community and extensive documentation

Cons of Moment

• Large bundle size, which can impact performance in web applications
• No longer recommended for new projects due to its legacy status
• More complex API compared to lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

Moment:

import moment from 'moment';

const formattedDate = moment().format('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss');
const futureDate = moment().add(1, 'week').calendar();

Tinydate:

import tinydate from 'tinydate';

const stamp = tinydate('{YYYY}-{MM}-{DD} {HH}:{mm}:{ss}');
const formattedDate = stamp(new Date());

Tinydate is a minimalist date formatting library, focusing solely on formatting dates with a small footprint. It offers a simple API and tiny bundle size, making it ideal for projects where only basic date formatting is needed. However, it lacks the extensive features and manipulation capabilities of Moment.

Moment, while feature-rich and widely adopted, is no longer recommended for new projects due to its large size and maintenance status. For modern applications, consider using lighter alternatives like Tinydate for simple formatting tasks, or more comprehensive solutions like date-fns or Luxon for advanced date operations.

Pros of dayjs

• More comprehensive feature set, including parsing, manipulation, and formatting
• Supports localization and internationalization out of the box
• Offers a plugin system for extending functionality

Cons of dayjs

• Larger bundle size compared to tinydate
• May have more overhead for simple date formatting tasks

Code Comparison

tinydate:

import tinydate from 'tinydate';
const stamp = tinydate('{YYYY}-{MM}-{DD}');
console.log(stamp(new Date()));

dayjs:

import dayjs from 'dayjs';
const date = dayjs();
console.log(date.format('YYYY-MM-DD'));

Summary

dayjs offers a more feature-rich solution for date and time manipulation, with support for localization and plugins. It's suitable for projects requiring extensive date operations. However, this comes at the cost of a larger bundle size.

tinydate, on the other hand, is a lightweight alternative focused solely on date formatting. It's ideal for projects where minimal date functionality is needed and bundle size is a concern.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, balancing between functionality and performance considerations.

Pros of node-dateformat

• More comprehensive date formatting options
• Supports localization and custom locale settings
• Allows parsing of date strings into Date objects

Cons of node-dateformat

• Larger package size (about 16KB minified)
• More complex API, potentially steeper learning curve
• Slower performance due to more features and flexibility

Code Comparison

node-dateformat:

var dateFormat = require('dateformat');
var now = new Date();
console.log(dateFormat(now, "dddd, mmmm dS, yyyy, h:MM:ss TT"));
console.log(dateFormat(now, "isoDateTime"));

tinydate:

import tinydate from 'tinydate';
const stamp = tinydate('{YYYY}-{MM}-{DD} {HH}:{mm}:{ss}');
console.log(stamp(new Date()));

Key Differences

• node-dateformat offers more built-in format options and flexibility
• tinydate focuses on simplicity and performance, with a smaller API surface
• node-dateformat supports parsing date strings, while tinydate is primarily for formatting
• tinydate has a significantly smaller package size (about 300 bytes minified and gzipped)
• tinydate uses a simpler template string approach for defining date formats

Both libraries serve different needs: node-dateformat is better suited for complex date formatting requirements, while tinydate excels in lightweight, performance-critical scenarios where basic date formatting is sufficient.