• Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    “Europe”, as if there weren’t several languages in Europe with different date formats per language…

    • Amon@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      All my homies hate ISO

      Said no-one ever?

      EDIT: thanks for informing me i now retract my position

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        1·
        3 months ago

        Nah, ISO is a shit organization. The biggest issue is that all of their “standards” are blocked behind paywalls and can’t be shared. This creates problems for open source projects that want to implement it because it inherently limits how many people are actually able to look at the standard. Compare to RFC, which always has been free. And not only that, it also has most of the standards that the internet is built upon (like HTTP and TCP, just to name a few).

        Besides that, they happily looked away when members were openly taking bribes from Microsoft during the standardization of OOXML.

        In any case, ISO-8601 is a garbage standard. P1Y is a valid ISO-8601 string. Good luck figuring out what that means. Here’s a more comprehensive page demonstrating just how stupid ISO-8601 is: https://github.com/IJMacD/rfc3339-iso8601

          • derpgon@programming.dev
            0·
            3 months ago

            Sure, it means something, and the meaning is not stupid. But since it is the same standard, it should be possible to be used to at least somehow represent the same data. Which it doesn’t.

            • groet@infosec.pub
              0·
              3 months ago

              I think it is reasonable to say: “for all representation of times (points in time, intervals and sets of points or intervals etc) we follow the same standard”.

              The alternative would be using one standard for points in time, another for intervals, another for time differences, another for changes to a timezone, another for …

              • lad@programming.devEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                The alternative would be

                More reasonable, if you ask me. At least I came to value modularity in programming, maybe with standards it doesn’t work as good, but I don’t see why

                • groet@infosec.pub
                  0·
                  3 months ago

                  Standards are used to increase interoperability between systems. The more different standards a single system needs the harder it is to interface with other systems. If you have to define a list of 50 standard you use, chances are the other system uses a different standard for at least one of them. Much easier if you rely on only a handful instead

  • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
    1·
    3 months ago

    I don’t know why anyone would ever argue against this. Least precise to most precise. Like every other number we use.

    (I don’t know if this is true for EVERY numerical measure, but I’m sure someone will let me know of one that doesn’t)

    • endeavor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      They are all equally prescise. American one is stupid just like their stupid ass imperial units. European one is two systems slapped together(since they are rarely used together and when they are its the iso format) and iso is what european standard should be.

      • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
        1·
        3 months ago

        You misunderstand my comment.

        I’m saying the digits in a date should be printed in an order dictated by which units give the most precision.

        A year is the least precise, a month is the next least, followed by day, hour, minute, second, millisecond.

        • millie@beehaw.orgEnglish
          01·
          3 months ago

          Sorting with either the month or the day ahead of the year results in more immediately relevant identifiable information being displayed first. The year doesn’t change very often, so it’s not something you necessarily need to scan past for every entry. The hour changes so frequently as to be irrelevant in many cases. Both the month and the day represent a more useful range of time that you might want to see immediately.

          Personally, I find the month first to be more practical because it tells you how relatively recent something is on a scale that actually lasts a while. Going day first means if you’ve got files sorted this way you’re going to have days of the month listed more prominently than months themselves, so the first of January through the first of December will all be closer together then the first and second of January in your list. Impractical.

          Year first makes sense if you’re keeping a list around for multiple years, but the application there is less useful in the short term. It’s probably simpler to just have individual folders for years and then also tack it on after days to make sure it’s not missing.

          Also, like, this format is how physical calendars work assuming you don’t have a whole stack of them sitting in front of you.

          • Kacarott@aussie.zone
            1·
            3 months ago

            By keeping years in different folders you are just implicitly creating the ISO format: eg. 2025/"04/28.xls"

  • czardestructo@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 months ago

    I’m almost 40 and now just realizing my insistence on how to structure all my folders and notes is actually an ISO standard. Way to go me.

    • valkyre09@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      I stumbled upon it years ago because sorting by name sorts by date. There was no other thought put into it.

  • istdaslol@feddit.org
    1·
    3 months ago

    My stupid ass read this top to bottom and I was confused why anyone would start with seconds

    • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      That’s an ISO date, and it’s gorgeous. It’s the only way I’ll accept working with dates and timezones, though I’ll make am exception for end-user facing output, and format it according to locale if I’m positive they’re not going to feed into some other app.

  • nesc@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    This pyramid visualisation doesn’t work for me, unless you read time starting with seconds.

    • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      3 months ago

      A pyramid is built bottom to top, not top to bottom. That’s also one of the strengths of the ISO format. You can add/remove layers for arbitrary granularity and still have a valid date.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, but people read top to bottom. The best way to do it would be to have upside down pyramids. With the biggest blocks at the top representing the biggest unit of time (YYYY) and the smallest blocks at the bottom representing seconds & smaller.

  • azi@mander.xyz
    0·
    3 months ago

    Hot take: 2025-Jan-27 is better than 2025-01-27 in monolingual contexts.

  • ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Maybe in programming or technical documentation, but no, when I check the date I want to know the day and the month, beyond that, it’s all unnecessary information for everyday use, and we have it right in Europe.

    You can’t change my mind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • lurklurk@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      You can’t change my mind.

      That’s not a good thing. That attitude limits you from improving how you do things because you’ve gotten emotionally attached to some arbitrary … never mind. Have a nice day.

    • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
      01·
      3 months ago

      These people are just too far into the ISO rabbit hole. I completely agree with you that DD.MM.YYYY is the best format for everyday use.

      • HatchetHaro@pawb.socialEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        the “best” format for everyday use is each individual person’s personal preference.

        you may be more used to DDMMYYYY due to culture, language, upbringing, and usage. in the same vein, i am more used to YYYYMMDD because in chinese we go 年月日 (year-month-day), and it makes organizing files and spreadsheet entries much more intuitive anyways.