4 ms·
I'd argue ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) is superior still because it is much more difficult to confuse for etiher DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY.
by Cu3PO42 3y ago
I'd argue ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) is superior still because it is much more difficult to confuse for etiher DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY.
- nottorp 3y agoI can stomach any separator as long as the order is right ;)
- Kamq 3y ago1994009030
- t-3 3y agoThat's padding strings of known length at the demarcation points, not inserting a separator to demarcate strings of unknown length.
- Kamq 3y agoStrings of unknown length were never in play. The comment was specifically about a separator in a date, which has only 2 potential conventional lengths depending on if you're using a 2 or 4 digit year.
- t-3 3y agoLength can to 2 or 4, month can be 1 or 2, day can be 1 or 2. Using separators makes that easily parseable by both humans and machines, whereas using 0s is just redundant when used on fixed-width strings or potentially confusing when used on variable-width strings.
- Kamq 3y agoThe comment I replied to was about the slashes in 94/09/30 vs iso 8601. Zero padding was already present in both of these
- nottorp 3y agoBit hard to digest for me. But if you have a column of dates in this format it will suddenly become more legible. 1994009030 1994010021 1995002011 1995006002 The zero separators align now.