Everyday, as an AmericanBob@midwest.social to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world – 1249 points – 3 weeks ago315Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentISO8601 gangRepreseeeeent!Some ISO8601 formats are good, but some are unreadable (like 20240607T054831Z for date and time).The ones without separators tend to be for server/client exchange though.I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :) Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.I mean I like this one without the separations
ISO8601 gangRepreseeeeent!Some ISO8601 formats are good, but some are unreadable (like 20240607T054831Z for date and time).The ones without separators tend to be for server/client exchange though.I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :) Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.I mean I like this one without the separations
Some ISO8601 formats are good, but some are unreadable (like 20240607T054831Z for date and time).The ones without separators tend to be for server/client exchange though.I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :) Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.I mean I like this one without the separations
The ones without separators tend to be for server/client exchange though.I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :) Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.
I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :) Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.
At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.
ISO8601 gang
Represeeeeent!
Some ISO8601 formats are good, but some are unreadable (like 20240607T054831Z for date and time).
The ones without separators tend to be for server/client exchange though.
I agree but they're hard to read at a glance when debugging and there's lots of them :)
Having said that, a lot of client-server communications use Unix timestamps though, which are even harder to read at a glance.
At least it’s human readable and not protobuf 😬 * though the transport channel doesn’t really matter it could be formatted this way anyhow.
I mean I like this one without the separations