616
ISO 8601 ftw rule (gregtech.eu)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

!iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org gang, rise up

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

I think it is reasonable to say: "for all representation of times (points in time, intervals and sets of points or intervals etc) we follow the same standard".

The alternative would be using one standard for points in time, another for intervals, another for time differences, another for changes to a timezone, another for ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The alternative would be

    More reasonable, if you ask me. At least I came to value modularity in programming, maybe with standards it doesn't work as good, but I don't see why

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Standards are used to increase interoperability between systems. The more different standards a single system needs the harder it is to interface with other systems. If you have to define a list of 50 standard you use, chances are the other system uses a different standard for at least one of them. Much easier if you rely on only a handful instead

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    True, that is reasonable. However sometimes it could be represented as scope creep. Depends on the thing, really. The more broad a standard is, the easier it is to deviate from given standard or not implement certain feature because there is not enough resources to do so.

    I'd rather have multiple smaller standards than one big. However, I understand your reasoning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent