4 ms·
What really caught my attention was the date format: 2024/06/01, YYYY/DD/MM. This is first time I'm ever seeing anything like this.
by methou 3y ago
What really caught my attention was the date format: 2024/06/01, YYYY/DD/MM. This is first time I'm ever seeing anything like this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seoulmetro 3y agoReally? It's very common to use YYYYDDMM. It sorts well numerically if you're wanting to group them even slightly.
- noitpmeder 3y agoUh, WHAT? How at all is YYYYDDMM better than YYYYMMDD? Is there any single advantage?
- seoulmetro 3y agoYeah my bad. I thought it was YYYYMMDD.
- d1sxeyes 3y agoYYYYMMDD sorts very well chronologically, but YYYYDDMM would only be useful in a very specific set of circumstances (generously speaking I can only really think of it being useful in cases where you have events that occur once a month on the same day, and for some reason it's more important to have those grouped together than to separate them by month). I suspect you misread and mistyped, but if not, I'd be really interested to hear cases where YYYYDDMM is actually practically useful!
- seoulmetro 3y agoI thought it was YYYYMMDD. Woops.
- rkachowski 3y agoIt also caught my attention, presumably these are represented internally as files in numbered dirs - so in this instance you end up with a strange hierarchy where the day of the month you published has a higher precedence than the month. Which doesn't seem particularly valuable to me..
- jxnlco 3y agoauthor here: i fucked up lol, but now the link is fixed so im scared to change it