Performance comparison of Clojurescript date/time libraries
In this post I am going to compare the performance of two Clojurescript date-time libraries, in the context of a typical single-page web application.
cljc.java-time (disclaimer: authored by myself) has the same API as java.time,
but targets both Clojure and Clojurescript.
It is also the underlying library for Juxt’s Tick which provides a powerful date-time API beyond what java.time offers. In this blog post I am considering cljc.java-time instead of Tick, because I expect a larger proportion of readers will already have some familiarity with java.time’s API.
Deja-fu is a new Clojurescript date/time library
positioning itself as being for
“applications where dealing with time is not enough of their core business to justify these large dependencies”.
The ‘large dependendencies’ being referred to there are those required by
Deja-Fu’s API offers a pure-cljs
Time entity and otherwise wraps the platform js/Date objects,
via the goog.date API.
The long established Cljs-time is similar to Deja-fu in that it also wraps the goog.date API. I’m not measuring that here, but I would expect to see similar results.
Deja-fu appears to offer a trade off between a “good-enough date/time library, that’s very lightweight”
vs a “complete date/time library that’s heavier”. My feeling is that cljc.java-time is not meaningfully heavier and
light date/time libraries are often heavy on developer time, bugs or both.
In my own experience of developing Clojurescript web applications with cljc.java-time, I haven’t see any performance problems - I’m already using Clojurescript and React so there’s already a significant build size, but given my users’ devices and network connections (reasonably up to date, but nothing special) the applications seem to perform very well.
I once did a talk introducing cljc.java-time and related libraries, but only briefly talked about build size - should I have said it was only suitable if date/time was so core to the app that “large dependencies” could be justified ? FYI Build size is already discussed in the documentation.
Over the years since I released cljc.java-time I’ve come across (and generally ignored) the
too large/heavy PoV a couple of times,
but Deja-fu’s recent appearance has prompted me to put it head to head with cljc.java-time in an experiment.
For my experiment I have written two versions of a basic Clojurescript web application.
People are using Clojurescript in various places, including highly constrained environments like microcontrollers, but based on what I see the React webapp is what the majority are targeting and the use-case for which I would like people to have some more help when choosing a date/time API.
These apps have been deployed on the web so that tools such as PageSpeed can be used to test them. They are hosted on Firebase, but just because I already had a dummy project set up there. They don’t use any Firebase APIs.
|Version||TTI (mobile)||TTI (desktop)|
TTI (time-to-interactive) shown in the table above was taken from PageSpeed analysis. The cljc.java-time version is slower according to that analysis, but not in any meaningful way.
The memory usage for both apps was roughly the same, as observed in a recent version of Chrome. Deja-fu is using js/Date objects, which have a single number field (representing an offset from the unix epoch). The cljc.java-time version is using LocalDate objects which have 3 numeric fields: year, month and day. Having the additional two fields could become significant if a large amount of date objects need to live in memory.
What about download size? Well, let’s imagine that every time a user visits these apps, the Clojurescript code has been changed and released, so cannot be retrieved from cache and must be re-downloaded. It will only take 2-3 visits before the total amount of data downloaded across those visits is greater in the Deja-fu version. This is because in the cljc.java-time version, the underlying data/time lib is downloaded separately, and so is cacheable. This is very simple to set up and I would put it in the ‘no brainer’ category if data allowance is a significant issue for an app.
Maybe we could modularize the Deja-fu version so the library code can be cached over visits, but my main point here is YMMV.
Are there more metrics that we should look at here? Please suggest anything you think is significant.
Shown below is the code that is different between the two versions.
Two functions are required
tomorrowreturns tomorrow’s date. This is needed so the date picker will only let users pick future dates
interval-calcworks out the number of days between 2 dates.
(ns time-lib-comparison.js-date (:require [lambdaisland.deja-fu :as deja-fu] [time-lib-comparison.app-main :as app])) (def millis-per-day (* 1000 60 60 24)) (defn interval-calc [event-date] (let [now (deja-fu/local-date) event-date (deja-fu/parse-local-date event-date) interval-millis (- (deja-fu/epoch-ms event-date) (deja-fu/epoch-ms now))] (/ interval-millis millis-per-day))) (defn tomorrow  (-> (deja-fu/local-date) (update :days inc)))
(ns time-lib-comparison.java-time (:require [cljc.java-time.local-date :as date] [cljc.java-time.temporal.chrono-unit :as cu] [time-lib-comparison.app-main :as app])) (defn interval-calc [event-date] (-> cu/days (cu/between (date/now) (date/parse event-date)))) (defn tomorrow  (-> (date/now) (date/plus-days 1)))
And now, a twist
The libraries have been weighed up against each other performance-wise, but of course that is only one part of the story.
Did you notice any bugs in the Deja-fu version? Go back and look if you want, I will reveal the issues in the next sentence.
Firstly, the Deja-fu version is expecting that there are 24 hours in a day - and generally that’s right, except when crossing
a DST boundary. The other issue is in the
tomorrow function of the Deja-fu version. It returns a date, but not tomorrow’s.
If you already know java.time, then it’s not just different method signatures you’d have to deal with in using Deja-fu, but actual semantics. For example, if you ‘add’ a month to the 31st January, what happens? A decision had to be made by the API authors, and that decision was made differently.
I did think about putting bugs in the cljc.java-time version too but they looked like obvious typos, like
(plusDays 2) for
Is this a fair test?
I have chosen some requirements for the app where in the Deja-fu version I need to use the much
maligned js/Date API. If you knew you’d be going down that road from the start, you might think twice about choosing a
lightweight date/time library, but generally we can’t be sure what requirements will come our way.
Also, if the app needed to do custom parsing and formatting from/to strings, for the cljc.java-time version I’d need to bring in a JSJoda addon, which takes TTI up to 2.5 seconds on mobile, whereas with the Deja-fu version TTI would be the same.
Looking to the future
Tempo is my work-in-progress attempt to make a date-time API
with the common parts
Temporal (to be available in browsers sometime soon,
possibly this year).
The fact that Temporal is a platform API is the big reason of course.
Will cljc.java-time become irrelevant in a Tempo future? I don’t think so because I think for many it will continue to be a solid, familiar choice that comes with minimal overhead and maximum stackoverflow-ability. Not everyone loves java.time but it’s usually good enough.
The main take-away I would hope readers get from this is that that cljc.java-time should not be dismissed out of hand for some common use cases, just as we don’t generally pick C over Clojure because an equivalent program might be less resource intensive.
There may well be Clojurescript applications where cljc.java-time would be inappropriate, but my feeling is for typical Clojurescript web applications it’s not an issue.
I’d definitely be interested to hear about your opinions on this and Clojurescript build sizes in general. What are you shipping? How did you make decisions about what build size was acceptable (including the use of Clojurescript itself)?
Feel free to use this thread on Clojureverse to comment.