Differences between this crate and time

[frederikhors]

I'm new to Rust and I'm wondering: what substantial differences are there between this crate and time?

[pitdicker]

As a mini-history, glossing over all details: before the release of rust 1.0 time-rs had the simple platform interfaces, and chrono was the date-time library. At some point time-rs was deprecated and chrono absorbed its functionality. Then chrono became unmaintained for a while, and time-rs became a new crate with a simplified part of chrono's API. Now both are actively developed again.

Chrono 0.4.33 vs time 0.3.34

feature	Chrono 0.4.33	time 0.3.34
date type	NaiveDate	Date
time type	NaiveTime	Time
date and time type	NaiveDateTime	PrimitiveDateTime
date, time and offset from UTC	DateTime<FixedOffset>	OffsetDateTime
date and time in UTC	DateTime<Utc> (Utc is a ZST)	OffsetDateTime
date and time, offset and associated timezone	DateTime<Tz>	--
formatting and parsing format	strftime-inspired	custom (nice) format
converting between time zones (not just offsets)	yes	no
handles results in DST transitions correctly	yes	no
compile-time IANA database	via chrono-tz	in progress
parsing and formatting RFC 2822	complete	complete(?)
parsing and formatting RFC 3339	complete	complete
formatting and parsing ISO 8601	no (open PR)	yes
localization	unstable, formatting only	no
API	needs new major version to match current standards	quite ergonomic
initialization and basic operations are const	yes	yes
macros for easy initialization	no	yes
serde	yes	yes
fix for CVE-2020-26235	pure-rust implementation	requires single thread or platform guarantees for soundness

I am of course biased. In my opinion chrono has the better implementations (this is all not meant as bragging, it is not designed by me). Unique features: Operations on dates can be very fast thanks to a smart internal representation. Chrono can correctly recognize tricky invalid cases when parsing (see the Parsed documentation). It can handle time zones and all the complexities that come with that. Our platform code can handle more tricky cases.

On the other hand chrono is quite old and predates current API standards. Time is more ergonomic to use at the moment, at least until chrono 0.5. Chrono uses the not-that-readable strftime format for formatting and parsing; you may like the functionality of time-rs better.

Consider also asking for the time crate (time-rs/time#308) for less bias 😄.

[djc]

chrono has a much more conservative MSRV. time is increasingly splitting out more dependencies.

[djc]

I would say you basically can't go wrong with either. time is a bit more popular right now.

[jhpratt]

Corrections/clarifications on my end (as maintainer of time):

handles results in DST transitions correctly

This is because DST transitions do not exist in fixed-offset implementations.

compile-time IANA database

In progress!

date and time in UTC

OffsetDateTime can handle this, although I actually have been working on a new type recently.

parsing and formatting RFC 2822

time supports the full RFC, including all deprecated parts. If you have a counterexample, please let me know.

formatting and parsing ISO 8601

This is fully supported.

fix for CVE-2020-26235

The "user guarantee" is not the case. Soundness is guaranteed. The only exception is if someone falsely asserts (in an unsafe context!) that they are upholding the soundness requirements.

[jhpratt]

chrono has a much more conservative MSRV. time is increasingly splitting out more dependencies.

chrono is 1.61; time is 1.67. That's not a huge difference. 1.67 is still a year old. The policy is different (does chrono have anything concrete?), but the reality is that I have not had a reason to bump MSRV in quite a while.

[djc]

chrono is 1.61; time is 1.67. That's not a huge difference. 1.67 is still a year old. The policy is different (does chrono have anything concrete?), but the reality is that I have not had a reason to bump MSRV in quite a while.

Oh, that is a much smaller difference than I thought, nice! Still wary of the policy, though.

[jhpratt]

I keep track of a number of features. #![feature(int_roundings)] is the only item currently set for a bump, though I have yet to check whether the stabilization is what's actually needed internally, given that it was a partial stabilization. Even then, I probably wouldn't bump it for just that.

Ultimately I don't see the MSRV being bumped in the near future, as nothing being tracked is close to stabilization and has sufficient impact.

[pitdicker]

Corrections/clarifications on my end (as maintainer of time):

Nice, good to have your input @jhpratt!

handles results in DST transitions correctly

This is because DST transitions do not exist in fixed-offset implementations.

Yes. Not meant as critique of time. Dealing with this just might be a feature someone would want and could help choosing a library.

date and time in UTC

OffsetDateTime can handle this, although I actually have been working on a new type recently.

parsing and formatting RFC 2822

time supports the full RFC, including all deprecated parts. If you have a counterexample, please let me know.

At the time I though I missed something with the timezone names, but haven't found the relevant parts back agin in your crate.

formatting and parsing ISO 8601

This is fully supported.

Really? Nice.

fix for CVE-2020-26235

The "user guarantee" is not the case. Soundness is guaranteed. The only exception is if someone falsely asserts (in an unsafe context!) that they are upholding the soundness requirements.

I guess we can call it: 'requires single thread or platform guarantees for soundness'

I'll update the table in my comment. It came from some notes while I was looking into the differences for myself, and wanted to give something mostly right instead of nothing 😄. Good to have some form of comparison anyway.

[pitdicker]

I would say you basically can't go wrong with either. time is a bit more popular right now.

Pretty similar to each other it seems.

Chrono

Time

[jhpratt]

Yes. Not meant as critique of time. Dealing with this just might be a feature someone would want and could help choosing a library.

Absolutely! My remark there was more for context, as it's implied by the other row.

Really? Nice.

It was an open issue for quite a while, but I was able to obtain the 2019 version of the spec (the most recent) when a company purchased it in my name.

I guess we can call it: 'requires single thread or platform guarantees for soundness'

That's a fair way to word it.

It came from some notes while I was looking into the differences for myself

Depending on how long ago it was done, some of the info may have been accurate at the time. It's certainly good to have something, as it's hard to be impartial, particularly given that I haven't used chrono in many years.

[djc]

I would say you basically can't go wrong with either. time is a bit more popular right now.

Pretty similar to each other it seems.

Well, I think 17% more qualifies as a "bit more" -- but yeah, it's definitely same order of magnitude.

[frederikhors]

@pitdicker maybe you can add another important difference in the table: with chrono I can freely use the #[derive(Default)], with time no.