7 ms·
The only thing worse than mm-dd-yyyy is dd-mm-yyyy. Long live yyyy-mm-dd
by dpeck 6y ago
The only thing worse than mm-dd-yyyy is dd-mm-yyyy.
Long live yyyy-mm-dd
- humanlion87 6y agoI have to disagree here. Both dd-mm-yyyy and yyyy-mm-dd are much much better than the mm-dd-yyyy. Both are very intuitive compared to the completely unintuitive mm-dd format.
- abraae 6y agoyyyy-mm-dd for the win indeed, if only for being naively sortable.
- Sharlin 6y agoYyyy-mm-dd is not used in real life because it puts the (in most contexts) least useful information first.
- young_unixer 6y agoISO 8601 also allows --mm-dd. I use it all the time.
- lbschenkel 6y agoFYI: this is the common way to write dates in Sweden.
- eru 6y agoAt least for the next 7979 years.
- purerandomness 6y ago"yyyy-mm-dd" and "dd-mm-yyyy" are both sorted - one descending, one ascendig. "mm-dd-yyyy" is just an arbitrary bag of entities, and a part of the population memorizes the order of them.
- tdeck 6y agoIt's not completely arbitrary, it matches the way we write out full dates or speak then aloud. January 2nd, 1900 becomes 1/2/1900.
- zeckalpha 6y agoThat is also arbitrary.
- crehn 6y agoTotally arbitrary. In French 2ème Janvier 1900 would be the most common.
- tdeck 6y agoI mean, it's no more arbitrary than any other order. In the context of "why does American English use this ordering", it has the desirable characteristic that it matches how we express dates in our everyday language. A trade-off exists between that characteristic and the desire to have the date go from smallest to largest or vice versa, but both approaches have practical benefits.