![]() ![]() The new Date() will return a date object as rendered by the date string passed as an argument. If you are not passing the parameter in the new Date() function. The new Date() returns the current system date and time, including the time zone information of your local system. Following is the syntax of the Date constructor − var date = new Date('date_string') The most commonly used way to convert a string into a date object is using the constructor of the Date() class. Let us see these solutions with examples − Using the Date() constructor Using the Date.parse() method − Same as the Date constructor this method accepts a string value parses and returns the date value in the form of milliseconds. Using the constructor of the Date class − This constructor accepts a string value representing the date value, converts it into a Date object, and returns the result. These powerful new features will modernize your JavaScript with shorter and more expressive code.In this article, we are going to discuss how to convert a string value to a Date object in JavaScript. This guide will bring you up to speed with all the latest features added in ECMAScript 13. The date-fns NPM package provides a parse() function to easily convert strings of various formats to a Date object.ġ1 Amazing New JavaScript Features in ES13.Use the toISOString() method to convert a Date object to an ISO-8601 string for consistent parsing behavior.For non-ISO-8601 date formats, we can split the string and pass the date components as numbers to the Date() constructor.Invalid date formats will result in an error being thrown or an invalid date being created.To convert a string to a Date object in JavaScript, call the Date() constructor and pass the string as an argument.Here we specify that the string is of the MM-dd-yyyy hh:m:ss format so that it can be converted correctly.Ĭonst date = parse(str, 'MM-dd-yyyy hh:m:ss', new Date()) Ĭonsole.log(date) // T08:13:50.000Z Key takeaways We can also use parse() function from the date-fns NPM package to easily convert strings of a wide variety of formats to a Date object. ![]() The Date toISOString() method returns a string of the date in the ISO 8601 format according to universal time. Can convert back to Date object with browser-independent parsingĬonsole.log(sameDate.getMinutes()) // 13 We can do this with the toISOString() method.Ĭonsole.log(isoString) // T08:13:50.000Z If we want to convert a Date object to a string for storage in a file or database, we can store it in the ISO 8601 format, so that we can retrieve and easily convert it back to a Date object with browser-independent parsing behavior without using any third-party libraries. How to Convert a Date Object to an ISO 8601 String Similarly, the values in the time string were separated with a colon ( :), so this was the separator we used to separate them with the String split() method.Īfter obtaining each date and time value separately, we converted them to numbers with the unary operator ( +) and passed them to the Date() constructor. So we used this as the separator when calling split() to obtain the month, day, and year individually. Unlike in the previous example, this time, the values in the date string were separated with a hyphen ( -). Const = str.split(' ') Ĭonst = dateStr.split('-') Ĭonst = timeStr.split(':') įirst, we had to split the string with a space to use the date and time strings separately.
0 Comments
In fact, my performance actually decreased so badly after I upgraded that I ended up having to create a new library and start from scratch. I have a large catalogue with images spread across several hard drives, so mine is probably the worst case scenario for testing. Upon launching the software, there is still a wait of several minutes before it becomes usable for me. Startup time is improved, but it can still take a long time if you have a large catalogue spread across multiple drives. I guess a lot of it will depend on your system configuration, the size of your library and so on. Overall the software does feel faster, but the improvements, for the most part, don’t seem dramatic to me. I could lie about it and just report on some positives so as not to offend anyone, but I’m sorry, I just can’t do that. ![]() Even in these areas, I have to admit, I’m underwhelmed. After all, the improvements to importing and performance were widely requested. Moving on, and in an attempt for this not to be a total rant, I wanted to try and evaluate the new features, all two of them, and the improved performance. So in a way, it’s good that the standalone licence is gone, because anyone who bought that version, especially in the last 6 months or so, really got a raw deal (pardon the pun). It seemed like an arbitrary decision to create a distinction between the standalone version and the subscription version. The reason I say that is because there’s no way it was developed, programmed and implemented in the time between when version 6 came out and dehire was added. The biggest of which was the Dehaze functionality, which was released shortly after version 6 was announced, and being cynical again, seemed to be timed just to create a difference to the standalone version. Throughout the 2015 CC release, there were only a few new features too, despite this being the reason for subscriptions. The performance improvements are nice, but they’re not significant enough, again, in my opinion, and many of the long-running bugs in Lightroom are still there, plus a few new ones for good measure. The only real new feature is the masking tools. People have been asking for the import improvements for forever, and even at that, in my opinion, they’re not properly implemented. Lightroom Classic isn’t significantly different to the previous version. Yet, despite that being the official line, there’s little evidence that that is the case in reality. If you give the company the benefit of the doubt and decide to accept that they have the best of intentions with the move, then you have to go with the premise behind it, which many hardcore Lightroom fans will happily point out to you: The reason is so that they can update the software more often. It’s a “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…” or “boy who cried wolf” kind of thing. That statement lasted only one major release cycle. Now they’re asking us to trust their word again, that the new old classic” version isn’t going anywhere. Adobe has also not done itself any favours in the consumer trust department either with this move, having previously indicated, perhaps a little too vaguely, that a perpetual licence version would continue. On the one hand, as I need the full Adobe creative suite for my motion graphics work, I’m already paying for it, so the change is not a big deal to me, but on the other hand, I can see why people are pissed off. I have mixed feelings about the switch to a subscription-only model. The main reasons for that controversy are the switch to a subscription-only model, the split into two versions, and the somewhat odd choice of name, Lightroom Classic. This release of Lightroom has been somewhat controversial. I decided to use the software as much as possible before putting electrons to silicon, but every time I tried to make notes or write segments of this, I just found myself being cynical and disappointed. When writing this review I really wanted to be positive. Instead, we saw the software develop a split personality and divide into two versions, each a little different, but neither offering much new over the previous versions. ![]() Given that the last version of Lightroom ran as updates to the 2015 release, it is perhaps unfortunate that we did not see more new features or many of the requested updates that users have made over the years. The main areas are the new masking tools, improved importing and overall performance improvements. While a numbered upgrade like this is normally a major feature release, Lightroom Classic seems to offer relatively little in terms of new features since the previous version. If you look in the about box, you will see the version number is listed as a 7.0 release. ![]() Lightroom Classic is essentially Lightroom 7 in Adobe’s weird new naming scheme. |