I hope you saw my latest edit... I redid a lot of stuff.
Again, yyyy-mm-dd works as a compromise. Isn't that better than just one side winning over the other?
It also has the side benefit of allowing computer file names to be sorted by date if you have your file names alphabetized, and in fact may be its biggest benefit and the main reason for its use in the first place (at least in the US, I've no idea about Europe).
(11-21-2013, 02:35 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope you saw my latest edit... I redid a lot of stuff.
Again, yyyy-mm-dd works as a compromise. Isn't that better than just one side winning over the other?
Yeah I saw your edits. I specifically don't like YYYY-MM-DD because it doesn't mimic spoken U.S. English though. :p
In regards to linguistics (verbal and written) I'm the kind of person who prefers that written conventions follow how speakers of a language use that language. Seeing conventions "contrived" like YYYY-MM-DD somewhat irks me. I just like the "natural" approach.
(11-21-2013, 02:35 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]It also has the side benefit of allowing computer file names to be sorted by date if you have them alphabetized. 
That's a big if though. I've got so many random reaction pictures and gifs that are just named after their hash
(11-21-2013, 02:51 PM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]In regards to linguistics (verbal and written) 吾'm the kind of person who prefers that written conventions follow how speakers of a language use that language. Seeing conventions "contrived" like YYYY-MM-DD somewhat irks me. 吾 just like the "natural" approach.
I'm practically the opposite. I personally feel that it cannot be considered "natural" seeing how the English language is a conditioned thing rather than something you're born with. Again, it falls into the whole "I'm just used to it".
(11-21-2013, 02:51 PM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]That's a big if though. 吾've got so many random reaction pictures and gifs that are just named after their hash
I'm thinking more of businesses and personal records, archival stuff, etc, rather than random things downloaded from the internet.
Also yyyy-mm-dd follows the same order as version numbers do. This is great for software that uses the date as the revision number.
(11-21-2013, 02:57 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm practically the opposite. I personally feel that it cannot be considered "natural" seeing how the English language is a conditioned thing rather than something you're born with.
I'm talking about natural in the sense that over the course of years, that's the "convention" that people decided on through everyday use (sort of like culture). Unless people decided to go along with another method of writing dates in the U.S. over the course of many years (and they stuck with it), I wouldn't consider anything else natural than what we use now. Making something like that happen quickly and arbitrarily seems, well, unnatural. As for English being a conditioned thing, same applies for every other language (and almost everything else you know that can't be reduced to pure instinct :p).
(11-21-2013, 02:57 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]Also yyyy-mm-dd follows the same order as version numbers do. This is great for software that uses the date as the revision number.
Version numbers are useless. Just use a git hash. Whoops... starting to sound like one of the Dolphin devs...
(11-21-2013, 03:03 PM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]Version numbers are useless. Just use a git hash. Whoops... starting to sound like one of the Dolphin devs...
Version numbers are indeed pretty useless, but date-based revision numbers allows you to automatically know how new or old a revision is.
(11-21-2013, 03:09 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]Version numbers are indeed pretty useless, but date-based revision numbers allows you to automatically know how new or old a revision is.
Just prefix all your files with the Unix Epoch Timestamp. Doesn't matter if it's MM-DD-YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD, or DD-MM-YYYY, seconds are seconds :p It also lets you know exactly how newer or older a file is from another one.
Doctor: Give me that patients file. *looks at it* No, not this one, it was made 1385014248 seconds after January 1st, 1970, I want the one that was 1385014534 seconds after January 1st, 1970.
(11-21-2013, 04:19 PM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]Just prefix all your files with the Unix Epoch Timestamp. Doesn't matter if it's MM-DD-YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD, or DD-MM-YYYY, seconds are seconds :p It also lets you know exactly how newer or older a file is from another 一ne.
But a Unix timestamp makes it harder know how much older something is relative to the current date. This is useful for any piece of software or data that gets manually updated by the user.
Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote:But a Unix timestamp makes it a PITA to know how much older something is relative to the current date
You're really not good at noticing jokes are you (hint:look at the spoiler) :\
At any rate, using dates in the naming of files is unnecessary if you have a decent file browser. Dolphin (the KDE file browser) has a nice "Details" mode that sorts everything into columns and displays the date at the side (and you can sort it by date by clicking on that part). All you have to do is give your files for a certain day the same timestamp (using touch on Linux). The Dolphin browser automatically alphabetizes files with the same timestamp.
I saw the joke, I just thought it was pointing out the absurdity of using seconds for date-labeling rather than using a unix time-stamp in general.
(11-21-2013, 04:44 PM)Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote: [ -> ]I saw the joke, I just thought it was pointing out the absurdity of using seconds for date-labeling rather than using a unix time-stamp in general.
It was making fun of both though :p