Never write your own date parsing library
241 comments
·July 25, 2025quelsolaar
glibby
By all means, write it. Just don't use it. These warnings are almost always in the context of code you're going to release, not exercises in learning on your own.
kuon
Hard disagree here. Use it. Of course, if you running code that drive a pacemaker or a train maybe be careful, but in general, do things. We don't want a world where only three old bearded guys can write a compiler or a physic engine. Do the same errors again and you'll learn, eventually you'll do better than those who were here before you.
bdangubic
I write my own, but in production I always use libraries written by some dude from Omaha :)
dylan604
And that dude is no longer actively maintaining it and you just discovered an issue with it.
flir
In the case of date libraries, I think if I ported the tests from a few well-known libraries to my own, I'd have reasonable confidence in my own.
Having said that, I don't think date libraries are hard, I think they're messy. Mostly because humans keep introducing convenience fudges - adding a second here, taking eleven days off there, that kind of thing.
benlivengood
I would not be surprised if the state of unit tests on good date parsing libraries are not sufficient to design a new one from scratch.
See the number of unit tests in the Linux kernel, for example.
shakna
Most well-known date library systems have failed in places. Quite a few, still do. So whilst you might get some known regression to test against, nothing can give you a foolproof guide.
You can have reasonable confidence that here there be dragons, but not so much that your assumptions about something will hold.
tbrownaw
> Having said that, I don't think date libraries are hard, I think they're messy.
Messy is just a particular kind of tedious which is the most common form of hard.
It's not like typical things that need doing tend to include solving lots of unsolved problems.
ramijames
This is such nonsense. All the stuff that we use, someone wrote. If nobody makes them, then how is that going to work?
The messaging here is that you should be careful about using what you build on your own because it:
- hasn't been battle tested
- likely has bugs
- isn't mature
The only way that it will be all of those things is if someone invests time and energy in them.
From an ecosystem perspective this is absolutely the right thing. You want duplicate projects. You want choice. You want critical knowledge to be spread around.
Swizec
> If nobody makes them, then how is that going to work?
I see it as “Dont write your own X, unless you want to maintain X. Here be dragons, this problem is deeper than it appears, the first 80% will be easy, the next 15% will annoy you, and the last 5% will consume your life for weeks, months, or even years. Or you could use a library”
ozim
I think there is missing point in this discussion.
Most of the time you build something else.
Like if you build a todo app and have to deal with scheduling you don’t spend time making date library because it’s not your goal. But people would do that.
Heck most developers instead of starting blog on a blog platform start writing code for their own blogging engine.
DANmode
Holy shit.
The point is, before you release your new thing, make sure it addresses all of the pain points the previous solutions have already slogged through,
or that if it doesn't, people are still aware of when they can arise, and why your thing has chosen not to mitigate them yet,
or ever, if it's an opinionated piece of tech.
mattmanser
It's about exposure.
The things that people write that everyone uses have had HUGE exposure.
They've been exposed to all the edge cases, they've been tested millions, if not billions of times. All the bugs ironed out.
The people who've worked on them are now the greatest domain experts on that little corner of comp-sci.
Yours won't unless it hits prime time.
So yours will be weak, brittle and dangerous.
null
bigstrat2003
I think that advice makes sense in the context of cryptography, where the consequences for getting it wrong can be quite serious indeed. I don't think it holds true for something as unimportant as a date parsing library.
poink
Correct date handling (including parsing) can be monumentally important. Imagine an app that reminds people when to take their medications, for example
leptons
A lot of cryptography relies on dates, time, etc.
chii
> The only way to learn how to do hard things, is to do hard things, so do the hardest things.
and i don't want to pay my employees to learn, i want to pay them to produce output i can sell.
Doing hard things are good, if this hard thing has never been done before - like going to the moon.
Doing hard things which has been done, but just not by you, is not good unless it's for "entertainment" and personal development purposes - which is fine and i encourage people to do it, on their own dime. Like climbing Mount Everest, or going to the south pole.
But if you are doing a project for someone else, you don't get to piggy back your personal wants and desires unrelated to the project on to it.
schindlabua
Except making employers do only easy things will make them stagnate. People who do nothing but simple CRUD apps over and over won't even be particularly good at making CRUD apps... whereas the guy who builds an Unicode font renderer in his free time always seems to write better code for some reason.
Getting better at your job is not just a "personal want" but very much something that the employer appreciates aswell.
Of course reinventing the wheel isn't good in corporate because the reinvented wheel is buggier than the ready made npm package but employers should go out of their way to find hard problems to solve that they can pass to their employees. It's called a growth opportunity.
pjmlp
Unless you work for enterprise consulting where employers appreciate replaceable cogs that they randomly drop into any project, and nicely out project budget regardless of delivery quality.
keybored
You can’t convince an employer with that attitude. They’re gonna keep exploiting their employees and “encourage” them to do their “personal development” in their free time.
ahf8Aithaex7Nai
> and i don't want to pay my employees to learn, i want to pay them to produce output i can sell.
This can be a bad local optimum. It probably depends on what exactly your business does, but it can make sense to pay an employee to acquire knowledge and skills that are needed in the business. You can't buy this off the shelf in all circumstances. Of course, it also has to make economic sense and be viable for the company. Unfortunately, I often see employees doing things quite badly that they don't really understand because they are not given the opportunity to learn properly. I can't imagine that this burns less money in the medium and long term than giving paid employees adequate space to learn.
pletnes
Also as an employee, this forces me to job hop to stay relevant.
d_tr
I am in a work environment where I actually get to do hard shit for fun, learn a ton, and also "get stuff done" and my employer is happy.
For some of the stuff that has been done already, it might still make sense to do your own implementation, for example if you want to be able to experiment without having to navigate and learn a huge codebase and then have to maintain a fork just to have your own stuff in.
Another project we are starting now involves replacing software which is outright crappy and wastes our time. Thankfully my employer was able to see and understand this after talking it through with them.
quelsolaar
Your customers will pay more for things that are hard to do. Ask ASML.
motorest
> Your customers will pay more for things that are hard to do. Ask ASML.
What a silly example. ASML is valuable because it does something no one else does. It's not because it's hard, it's because they have the know-how and infrastructure to do it whereas others don't.
Juggling is hard. Do you know any millionaire jugglers?
rambambram
Is quelsolaar your employee?
bdhcuidbebe
> i don't want to pay my employees to learn
Then how do you expect them to learn?
Good luck getting more blood out of that stone, smh.
Latty
Let's be a little charitable and assume they mean just learn. There are hard tasks you can learn from that also provide something you can't just get off the shelf, rather than just reimplementing the wheel.
motorest
> People say that about hard things, and I only want to do hard things.
That's perfectly fine. Your time, your hobbies.
> Nobody wants people who can do easy things, people want people who can do hard things.
No, not really. People want people who do easy things, because they are clever enough to avoid needlessly wasting their time having to do hard things when they could have easily avoided it.
It's your blend of foolish mindset that brought us so many accidental complexity and overdue projects. There's a saying: working smart instead of working hard.
> So go ahead, write your own date library, your own Unicode font rendering, compiler, OS, game engine or what ever else people tell you to never do because its hard.
You can cut it out, this isn't LinkedIn.
leakycap
I get wanting to do hard things, but do you write in binary? Do you crank your own electricity?
My most valuable resource is time. Sure, I could learn more low-level aspects of my craft ... and sometimes I find it useful to do so.
When I focus on doing the hardest, already solved things by re-implementing them my own way, what value am I adding?
I've never met a client who cared about a library or how I did something in code - until it broke. Then, they didn't care who wrote it, they just cared it started working again.
quelsolaar
Writing in binary or cranking your own electricity is easy. Anyone can do it.
There is a difference between things that are difficult and things that just take a lot of work.
cortesoft
> I've never met a client
There is difference between “never build your own for a professional need” and “never build your own”.
I build my own stuff if it is for my own purposes, and I use proper tools and libraries for my professional work.
ok_dad
People have built tables but I still build tables myself. Not as many people will use them as people who use IKEA tables, but that’s okay, I’m still going to build them.
leakycap
I don't think tables are the hard thing.
If you wanted to grow your wood, plane and dry it yourself, etc... then you'd be "hard way" building a table.
I assume you use tools?
avanwyk
I can't believe this is such a controversial take. Solving hard things by yourself is growth. I 100% agree, rather solve a hard solved problem yourself than learning yet another JS framework or launching yet another revenue losing SaaS ("successful" because of VC). Or whatever. Push hard boundaries.
stouset
Nobody is really saying not to build these things. They’re saying the problem is exceedingly annoying to solve—and often not in a technically interesting way but in a way that is just massively tedious—and a better alternative almost certainly already exists.
If you want to build it to scratch an itch, go ahead. If you want to build it for fun, go ahead. If you want to build it because an existing solution gets something wrong and you can do better, go ahead (but know that it is a way bigger undertaking than you might assume at first glance).
The real advice is “don’t casually build your own X”, but that’s less punchy.
immibis
An exemplary one is "don't build your own timezone database"
It's not interesting, it's not fun, it's just a process of getting complaints it's wrong in edge cases and then fixing them, over and over until no one can find another broken edge case.
You can start by writing down England is +0, Germany is +2, etc... someone's going to mention DST and you'll put in a field for switching on the Nth Sunday of month X... later you'll run into a country that uses a different rule and you'll add a bunch of spaghetti code or write a Turing-complete DSL, etc... One day someone tells you about a village where they count 17 hour days on seashells and then you'll give up.
And if your DB doesn't produce identical results to the Olson DB in all cases then you created an incompatibility anyway. Might as well just use the Olson DB.
brianpan
It's controversial because 1) good on someone for wanting to do something difficult and 2) I cannot think of a worse thing to try to implement. Maybe trying to parse the world's postal and street addresses is a close second?
Just, why.
psychoslave
There are different kind of hardship though.
There things which was a result will make your mind click to an other way to comprehend a problem space and how to navigate through it.
And there are things which are hard due to pure accumulation of concurrent conventions, because of reasons like coordinating the whole humanity toward harmony with full happy peaceful agreement of everyone is tricky.
Handling date is rather the latter. If you dig in the lucky direction, you might also fall into cosmological consideration which is a rabbit hole of its own, but basically that's it: calendars are a mess.
dracodoc
It's not because it's "hard".
It's all about the nuisance created by human behavior. Calendar, DST, timezone, all the problems you never imagined can happen and can only be met in real life scenarios, and you will meet same problem again, struggle then found out the same problem have been solved long time ago by mature library, and the solution doesn't require any smart or advanced technique, just another corner case.
geocar
I disagree hard.
Firstly because I have a great imagination, but secondly because I am old and have a lot of real life scenarios to think about.
State-of-the-art here has changed a few times in my professional career: Once upon a time most time/date libraries used a single integral type and try to make it do double-duty by being both interval and absolute (whatever that means) time by taking the interval from an epoch.
Relatively recently however, that's started to change, and that change has been made possible by people using languages with better type systems reinventing the date/time approach. This has led to fewer bugs, and more predictability with regards to calendar operations in different programs.
But bugs still happen, so this approach is still unsatisfying. One thing I keep having to worry about is distance; I record RTT as part of my events, since when I am looking for contemporaneous events, the speed-of-light actually tends to be a real factor for me.
So I don't think this is solved simply because my problems aren't solved by existing libraries, and I keep getting into arguments with people who think GMT=TAI or something dumb like that.
It's not "all about" anything: Nobody knows shit about what's happening in the next room over, and if there are 12 different date/time libraries now, I guarantee there'll be a 13th that solves problems in all of them, and is still incomplete.
d_tr
In a scenario where a programmer has to do this for work and might naively think that date handling is simple, the title is invaluable advice. It is one of those things that can cause real trouble.
OTOH writing, e.g., your own renderer could cause some funny display at worst and maybe some unnecessary effort.
davidw
It's like that joke someone posted on Twitter: "I was in favor of space exploration until I realized what it would mean for date/time libraries"
3cats-in-a-coat
Every time someone mentioned "days" or "months" or "years" in Andor I had to mentally zap my brain not to think about how it doesn't make a sense across a galaxy.
jerf
Consider it a translation convention. There's a time and a place for "cycles" or "rels" or whatever, but it gets into "Calling a Rabbit a 'Smeerp'" [1] territory pretty quickly. The payoff isn't really all that great.
Stargate SG-1 is one of my favorite instances of this. The first couple of episodes address the fact that the Earth characters do not speak the same languages as everyone else in the galaxy. Then, having established the point that A: the show runners understand this is an issue and B: it makes for a rather tedious watch, they moved on to "everyone speaks English" and we all breathed a sigh of relief. I just think of it as part of the "camera" now. It turns out that we don't necessarily want a truly literal recording of what such things would look like.
[1]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmee...
jgauth
"The Hunt for Red October" had an interesting way of handling this with the Russian speakers. The movie starts with them speaking Russian with English subtitles, does a slow zoom into the Russian-speaker's lips, and switches to English mid-sentence.
commandlinefan
Like in Game of Thrones when Davos was trying to learn to read and incorrectly pronounced the word "knight" the way it was spelled - somehow I could accept that everybody in a fictional universe spoke English except for all the ones who spoke other fictional languages, but I drew the line at words being spelled the same as well.
ceejayoz
> The payoff isn't really all that great.
If you’ve read David Weber’s Safehold series, this point gets super clear. It's written with names like "Zherald Ahdymsyn" (Gerald Adamson), but that makes it quite the slog for many.
tetha
I think that these fundamental things can be turned into an interesting topic, but you have to try for it.
Like, in a story background I'm pushing around, there's a coalition of a large amount of species developed on different planets. And you're a military officer, and you need to coordinate shifts, but - assuming some collectively normalized number of hours - some of your tiny dudes are tuned to 3 hours of sleep, 3 hours of leisure and 3 hours of work, others weird dudes with 2 arms and 2 legs are tuned to 38 hour cycles, and some huge dudes with a trunk in their face are tuned to 356 hour cycles.
Even if you could train and adjust this by an hour or two (which, for the 3 hour dudes would compare to an 8 earth-hour extension of duty for us), how the heck would you coordinate any kind of shifts across this? Or does every species have their own schedule? Good look finding crossover meetings then. Some of the small guys would have to do overtime for longer meetings even.
But you have to make it a point of the story and the challenges if you want to include it. If it is just a weird side note, just say that they figured out a conversion and that's it.
clem
Vernor Vinge had it figured out in A Deepness in the Sky with the use of kiloseconds, megaseconds, and gigaseconds.
greggyb
Coming from an educational background of imperial units, I sometimes catch flak from ... most of the world about this.
I take joy in exuberantly pushing back on their insistence of clinging to such archaic time units as "minutes", "hours", and "days", telling them to come back when they embrace kiloseconds. It is telling that most of my friends accept this with equal joy and laughter (:
It probably doesn't hurt that I've also spent time drilling metric conversions so that I can code-switch pretty seamlessly among units. Neurotic tendencies can have payoffs.
BurningFrog
A second is still originally defined as 1/86400 of an Earth day.
That doesn't make it unusable as a cross galactic time unit, and I think the same goes for years and hours.
scbrg
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Galactic_Standard_Calendar#...
The Galactic Standard Calendar or Galactic Standard Time was the standard measurement of time in the galaxy. It was based on the Coruscant solar cycle. The Coruscant solar cycle was 368 days long with a day consisting of 24 standard hours.
60 standard minutes = 1 standard hour
24 standard hours = 1 standard day
5 standard days = 1 standard week
7 standard weeks = 1 standard month
10 standard months + 3 festival weeks + 3 holidays = 368 standard days = 1 standard year
mystifyingpoi
Well, in entirety of SW (or at least in mainline movies) it is kinda strange, that day and night happens basically on the same 24h period as on our Earth, given that all the planets are different. Could make a much more interesting story without this crutch for the audience.
Terr_
That makes me think of the foreword Isaac Asimov wrote for Nightfall, explaining his choice of terms:
> The essence of this story doesn't lie in the quantity of bizarre terms we might have invented; it lies, rather, in the reaction of a group of people somewhat like ourselves, living on a world that is somewhat like ours in all but one highly significant detail, as they react to a challenging situation that is completely different from anything the people of Earth have ever had to deal with. Under the circumstances, it seemed to us better to tell you that someone put on his hiking boots before setting out on a seven-mile walk than to clutter the book with quonglishes, vorks, and gleebishes.
dizhn
Babylon 5 times.
https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Measurements_of_Time
Aliens use phrases like " 2 of your Earth days "
amelius
Well, that problem exists now too, but everybody sticks their head in the sand.
TheJoeMan
It's funny to reason why we must go to bed when the clock has a certain number, since modern technology could easily be programmed to adjust as needed. No technical reasons the Martians can't go to bed at 9:00am today and 9:40am tomorrow. This mirrors my thoughts on why farmers caring about daylight savings time is farcical, farmers I know use the timekeeping of "crack of dawn" and "sunset".
dmoy
iirc DST was never about farmers, and always about energy usage (lighting, etc) in the evening
Agree I've never met a farmer who cares about DST. Though also, for non-ag farmers, sometimes "crack of dawn" isn't early enough lol. Cow: "Dairy barn has electric lights, why aren't you awake at 4am tending to my needs, Human? Vacation? Lol no, stay here. Every morning. 4am."
slyall
DST is not about energy use. If it actually saves energy is debated and depends a lot on the local climate and air conditioning usage etc.
What it is about is moving an extra hour of daylight from say 5:30am-6:30am (when it is only of use to farmers and a few other early risers) to say 7pm-8pm when 95% of the population is still awake.
Arainach
People want to understand when things are open/reasonable without having to do a lookup every time. A conversion has to happen somewhere - either I can say "X is in timezone foo. It's 1300 there so they're awake and I can call them" or "It's 1900 UTC, X is awake from....err....2200 to 1400, so I can call now".
The first is significantly easier as it requires remembering only a single offset and then going with societal conventions.
devilbunny
Farmers who have to buy things (and that's almost all of them) care about the hours the shops are open, which is affected by DST.
bluGill
And farmers are annoyed that one day the shop is open just after dawn, and the next not for another hour. Farmers are building their life around sunrise/sunset (or sometimes the dew cycles which is tied to the sun), and then fit the rest of the world in between.
johnnyanmac
We're mostly still a diurnal species. We go to bed at 9PM instead of 9Am for evolutionary reasons. We can fight against it, but the reasons are as arbitrary as biology is.
Likewise Daylight savings is a concept that had its uses, but makes less sense as technology progresses. I don't think even farmers care much about 7AM approximating to sunrise and 6PM as sunset.
jameshart
Time zones are less about having uniform names for the times for waking up or going to work or mealtimes, and more about when your calendar changes from one date to the next.
jillesvangurp
IMHO, ISO 8601 as a standard is way too broad and unspecific. ISO 8601 is way too messy. Telling somebody that they need to parse an ISO 8601 date time is not enough information to do the job. Which variant is it? Does it include the time part. IMHO allowing the full range of ISO 8601 dates and times in a data format is usually a mistake. You want to be more specific.
There's a need for a standard that locks down the commonly used variants of it and gets rid of all the ambiguity.
For me, timestamps following this pattern 'YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.xxxxxZ' is all that I use and all my APIs will accept/produce. It's nice that other legacy systems are available that don't normalize their timestamps to UTC for whatever reason, that consider seconds and fractions of a second optional, etc. But for unambiguous timestamps, all I want is this. It's fairly easy to write a parser for it. A simple regular expression will do the job. Of course add unit tests. Technically the Z is redundant information if we can all agree to normalize to UTC. Which IMHO we should. In the same way the T part and separators are redundant too. But they are nice for human readability.
You can use datetime libraries that are widely available to localize timestamps as needed in whatever way is required locally. But timestamps should get stored and transmitted in a normalized and 100% unambiguous way.
It's only when you get into supporting all the pointless and highly ambiguous but valid variants of ISO 8601 that parsing becomes a problem. There's actually no such thing as a parser that can parse all valid variants with no knowledge of which variant is being used. There are lots of libraries with complex APIs that support some or all of the major and minor variants of course. But not with just one function called parse().
I think the main challenge with ISO 8601 is that it never called out this variant as a separate thing that you should be using. This really should be its own standard. And not using that would be a mistake. ISO 8601 is what happens when you do design by committee.
ttiurani
> You can use datetime libraries that are widely available to localize timestamps as needed in whatever way is required locally. But timestamps should get stored and transmitted in a normalized and 100% unambiguous way.
If by "timestamp" you mean past dates and deterministic future dates, then agreed. (Although I prefer unix epoch in ms for those, to be able to use integers and skip string parsing steps completely.)
But if your unlucky enough to need to handle future dates, especially "clock on the wall" ("let's meet in Frankfurt on July 26th 2029 at 1pm"), then you just can't know the timezone. The reasons can be many political ones, but especially in this case there's a high probability that EU will remove daylight saving time by then.
So in those cases, if you want to be correct, you'd need to include the geolocation in the stored timestamp.
QuadmasterXLII
I ran into date heck recently in a medical setting for storing birthdates. Eventually I settled on the idea that a birthdate isn’t a physical time, it’s just a string. We can force the user to enter it in the format 02/18/1993 leading zeroes and all, and operations on it other than string equality are invalid. We’ll see if this survives contact with the enemy but it’s already going better than storing and reasoning about it as a point or interval in time and people’s birthdays changing when they move timezones.
kaoD
I like how Temporal[0] does this. What you were dealing with is Temporal.PlainDate[1], i.e. a date with a calendar associated but no time or timezone (might be due to being implied but also might be irrelevant, like in birthdates).
Temporal has other cool types, each with distinct semantics:
- Instant: a fixed point in time with no calendar or location. Think e.g. "the user logged in at X date and time" but valid across the world for any timezone or calendar system. This is what we usually use "Unix UTC timestamps" for.
- ZonedDateTime: like an Instant but associated with a particular calendar and location. Think an Instant but rendered "real" into a calendar system and timezone so the user can see a meaningful time for them.
- PlainDate: already discussed. Think e.g. birthdates.
- PlainTime: think "run task every day at 6:30pm".
- PlainDateTime: like an Instant but associated with a calendar system, but no timezone. Think e.g. what a user would insert in a datetime picker, where the timezone is implied instead of explicitly selected.
- PlainYearMonth: think e.g. "we'll run our reports during October 2025".
- PlainMonthDay: think e.g. "my birthday is June 13".
- Duration: think e.g. "the task ran for 3hrs 30min".
Also see its important concepts[2].
[0] https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/
[1] https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/#Temporal-PlainDate
Terr_
I hope that as time goes on software design get better about modeling things that are guesses, conjecture, etc. rather than Absolute Facts.
As-is, we assume lots of things are facts and we just hope it's true enough to avoid problems. (Starting with the business requirements. :p )
keeganpoppen
yeah, it was a long (and painful) time coming, but i think the temporal api finally basically nailed it. you know a library is good when you learn something about how to think about the problem just from how the code/api is structured.
benreesman
Relatedly, std::chrono isnt exactly a beauty, but it did get people thinking about time points and durations and clocks and which operations are valid ways to move among them. Stuff like this is good.
geocar
> a date with a calendar associated but no time or timezone (might be due to being implied but also might be irrelevant, like in birthdates).
It might also be relevant: Ever ask an older Korean person their age?
> Instant: a fixed point in time with no calendar or location. Think e.g. "the user logged in at X date and time" but valid across the world for any timezone or calendar system. This is what we usually use "Unix UTC timestamps" for.
This is not a thing. Those are intervals to some Epoch, maybe taking into account leap-seconds and maybe not. They are not very useful except grossly over long ranges.
> - ZonedDateTime: like an Instant but associated with a particular calendar and location. Think an Instant but rendered "real" into a calendar system and timezone so the user can see a meaningful time for them.
Like when a user logged in at X date and time. They don't do this from no location, but from some location.
> - PlainDate: already discussed. Think e.g. birthdates.
And already wrong.
> - PlainTime: think "run task every day at 6:30pm".
Erm no. You can say 18:30 hours after midnight, or you can say when the calendar says 6:30pm, but these are different things. Imagine the poor fool who wants to run the task every day at "1:30am" and has it run twice on some days.
Bars close in some parts of the world at 30h (30時) to mean 6am the following day.
> - PlainDateTime: like an Instant but associated with a calendar system, but no timezone. Think e.g. what a user would insert in a datetime picker, where the timezone is implied instead of explicitly selected.
No, like a string.
> - PlainYearMonth: think e.g. "we'll run our reports during October 2025".
Nonsense. Also a string.
> - PlainMonthDay: think e.g. "my birthday is June 13".
Your birthday might be on the 29th of January. You cannot do reasonable arithmetic with such things, so it might as well be a string like many of these others.
> I like how Temporal[0] does this.
I don't if you can't tell. This stuff is complicated and I'd like more people exploring it because I don't know The Right Answer™ either, but I know enough to know that every existing solution is wrong in some way that can cause real harm.
8organicbits
> in the format 02/18/1993
Is this DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY? I can tell from the 18 that it's the latter, but that convention isn't universal. I'd recommend YYYY/MM/DD as a less ambiguous format, but I don't have a perfect answer.
kriops
Furthermore, require dashes over slashes to signal that you are expecting ISO-8601 compatible dates, i.e., YYYY-MM-DD. Most users does not know the standard even exists, but it serves as an affordance that it is different from dd/mm/yyyy, etc.
PaulHoule
Those ISO-8601 dates are great for date processing with primitive tools such as GNU sort or awk since they sort lexically, at least if you're not comparing dates in different time zones.
senfiaj
Every time I see an input date string in XX/XX/YYYY format I get a micro PTSD flashback. This cannot be parsed reliably and is locale dependent. The standard date format is YYYY-MM-DD (it's also the date part of the ISO time format). Raw text inputs should be avoided as much as possible, date/time pickers should be preferred.
hanche
Even worse with just two digits for the year! 01/02/03 could be 1 Feb 2003, or 2 Jan 2003, or 3 Feb 2001. Let’s just be thankful no one ever uses any of remaining three permutations.
dragonwriter
> The standard date format is YYYY-MM-DD (it's also the date part of the ISO time format)
Strictly, it is the extended form of the ISO 8601 calendar date format. (The basic format has no separators.)
ISO 8601 allows any of its date formats (calendar date, week date, or ordinal date) to be combined with a time representation for a combined date/time representation, it is inaccurate both to call any of the date formats part of the time format, and to call the calendar date format the format that is part of the combined date/time format.
(There's a reason why people who want to refer to a simple and consistent standard tend to choose RFC-3339 over ISO 8601.)
happytoexplain
This isn't really relevant to the parent's topic though, aside from UX. The UI can tell the user which is the day and which is the month. The logic layer knows the format explicitly.
jack_pp
Pretty sure they force the user into that format so that shouldn't be an issue
PaulHoule
I guess in your case you're never doing date arithmetic or greater than or less than, but only doing equality testing, right? That is, it's part of a composite key.
I faced a similar problem with a form where people were supposed to submit a date and probably not aware of what timezone was involved. I figured that so long as they selected "02/28/1993" and people always saw "02/28/1993" that was correct and if they ever saw it differently it was wrong. So I used non-TZ aware dates throughout the whole system.
BurningFrog
Normal/"legal" dates are not timestamps or related to timezones, and this fact will eternally be rediscovered as long as humans write software.
legulere
If you store it just as a string it means that you cannot do anything useful with it like age-dependent logic or you just pass on parsing logic to users of the field.
FHIR in my opinion has a pretty good system for dates (including birthdates): YYYY, YYYY-MM, or YYYY-MM-DD. (Not knowing your exact birthday is common for some countries).
dragonwriter
What environment are you in where you have to work with birthdates, you have timezone aware dates, times, and intervals, but you don't have a naive/plain/local date type that already exists forcing you to use strings in place of date-without-timezone?
You seem to have a reasonably expedient solution for that problem, but it is surprising to have the combination of things you have to have and things you have to be missing to have that problem in the first place.
happytoexplain
They may have something that's just not as easy to work with as strings. E.g. in Swift, you have DateComponents, but that's too dynamic (and Date is sometimes referred to as naive, but that's a misunderstanding, since they are timestamps, not date+time).
kccqzy
> people’s birthdays changing when they move timezones
That's because the developers use datetimes (aka timestamps) to store a single date. Just pick an arbitrary epoch date (such as January 1, 1900 as used by Excel, or my favorite January 1, 1600 since 1600 is a multiple of 400 making leap year calculations even simpler) and store the number of days elapsed since then. The rules involving leap years are much much simpler than rules involving timezones and timezone databases. The translation from/to this representation to a broken-down y/m/d takes only ~50 lines of code anyways.
Of course if you don't need to do arithmetic on dates, just store three numbers, year, month, and day.
SoftTalker
No, don't do that. Use a date datatype (not date/time). You aren't the first person to ever need to handle dates without times/timezones in a computer program. Use what your database/language/libraries already have to support that.
tadfisher
Specifically, a "local date", codified as LocalDate in every date library worth a damn, except for Javascript which chose "PlainDate" just to be different.
PaulHoule
Well, for hardcore chronology Julian dates are what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
which are the moral equivalent of Unix timestamps with a different offset and multiplier. These work OK for human history but will break if you go far enough into the past or the future because uncertainty in the earth's rotation adds up over time.
If you don't care about timezones timezones may still care about you, if you want to minimize trouble it makes sense to properly use timezone-aware Zulu (GMT) dates for everything if you can.
In certain cases you might be doing data analysis or building an operational database for throttling access to an API or something and you know there are 16-bits worth of days, hours, 5-minute periods or something it can make sense to work relative to your own epoch.
happytoexplain
In my humble opinion, this is not good advice unless you demonstrably need it for query performance or something. It is very easy for the logic layer to accidentally mess that up, either in reading or, worse, in writing back.
In this case, I'd suggest storing what you mean (the user wasn't born 9,487 days after Jan 1 1970. They were born Dec 23, 1995.)
Storing the literal units (and ONLY the relevant units), as the parent has, is robust and logically+semantically correct (they could add a translation layer for UX so the user doesn't have to be particular, but that's beside the point). Whether you use a string or a struct or some date-only type is moot, as long as you're literally storing the year, month, and day, and only those three things. You can ephemerally convert it to your platform's date type if you need to.
pavel_lishin
> The translation from/to this representation to a broken-down y/m/d takes only ~50 lines of code anyways.
Didn't the article explicitly tell us not to write our own date parsing library?
kccqzy
I disagree with that. And furthermore it's not parsing. It's converting between a single integer and a tuple of three integers.
habibur
> or my favorite January 1, 1600 since 1600 is a multiple of 400
You need to deal with 1600 and 2000 being leap year.
While 1700, 1800, 1900 not being a leap year.
I limit dates from 1900 to 2100. All !year%4 = leap year.
Especially when you try to convert int_date to y,m,d things get tricky.
kccqzy
That's exactly why I propose a multiple of 400, not a multiple of 100. The proleptic Gregorian cycle is a 400-year cycle. There are 97 leap years in it. What's tricky about it? Just take a look at my code: https://github.com/kccqzy/smartcal/blob/9cfddf7e85c2c65aa6de...
jerf
"Years are not leap years, unless % 4, unless % 100, unless % 400."
It's a wacky rule for sure.
2000 was fun. Everyone knows about "unless % 4", but there was also an interesting and very vocal set of people who knew about the "unless % 100" but somehow knew that without knowing about the "unless % 400" part. A very specific level of knowledge.
shadowgovt
IIUC why medical cares at all, this is really insightful. Because as far as I'm aware, the medical industry basically uses birthdate as a key; it helps to (a) tell two patients with other primary keys (like name or address) apart and (b) do a quick mental-acuity check on the patient by just having them regurgitate the value and doing a human-brain string= on it.
Animats
I requested an ISO 8601 date parser in the Python "datetime" library in 2012.[1] "datetime" could format into ISO 8601, but not parse strings. There were five ISO 8601 parsers available, all bad. After six years of bikeshedding, it was was fixed in 2018.
That's what it took to not write my own date parsing library.
motorest
> That's what it took to not write my own date parsing library.
If you wrote your own date parsing library, there would be six ISO 8601 parsers available, all bad.
You should feel grateful for not having wasted your time.
fsckboy
>Consider "200". Is this the year 200? Is this the 200th day of the current year? Surprise, in ISO 8601 it’s neither — it’s a decade, spanning from the year 2000 to the year 2010. And "20" is the century from the year 2000 to the year 2100.
there is so much wrong with this paragraph, it's a nest of people who shouldn't work on date parsing. there is no way 200 is any kind of date, but if you're going to insist it is, 2000 to 2010 is 11 years unless "to" means "up to but not including" in which case it should say 2001 to 2011 if you want to refer to the 200th decade, since decade 1 was 1AD through 10AD...
there is no saving this post
eterm
> 2000 to 2010 is 11 years
This is obviously wrong by induction.
If 2000 to 2010 is 11 years, then:
2000 to 2009 would be length 10 years
...
2000 to 2001 would have length 2 years
and finally 2000 to 2000 would be a span lasting "1 year".
But any span with the same start and end point must have length zero, it's nonsensical to have a system without that property.
As for the spec, ISO 8601 defines a decade as a period of 10 years starting with a year divisible by 10 without a remainder.
Decade 1 is year(s) 10 through 19.
tobyhinloopen
I agree, "200" is just "NotADate". I like JS-Joda's date formatting.
ashoeafoot
Now i want to make a date format, combined with other data that is the ultimate challenger of date parsing.
IntroDuceThing: The ip:port,date/time,longlat string. Oh, yes its format is also dependant on the language you encode it in and what parts you leave out to be defaulted. .:, is now a valid locationdateip
takinola
No other programming concept has caused me more grief than dealing with time and timezones. It starts to get really mind-bendingly complex once you start thinking about it deeply. That is even before you start encountering the quirks (some places have timezone changes that depend not only on the time of year but also on the actual year). Lesson learnt - choose a library (moment is great) and never think about time again.
mavamaarten
Especially because 99,9999% of the time I don't even care about any of the special cases, and I just want to show a simple date to a user.
And still, you regularly run into issues, because our API or a third party did something silly
alex_c
Except you do still have to think about time, no matter what… Libraries will help with the really messy details, but even the high level requirements have a lot of pitfalls.
“Simple” example that anyone who’s ever worked on a scheduling application will probably be familiar with:
“Get a list with all of today’s events.”
Well, whose “today” (timezone) are we talking about? Server, client, setting in the user account? Or none of the above, and actually timezone at the physical location of the event, if there is one?
And what does “today” mean, anyway? Truncate the date? 00:00-23:59? Business hours?
And what does “today’s event” even mean? Events can cross midnight… Does an event need to start today? End today? Both? Can events span multiple days?
The fun never ends!
ori_b
Libraries can't paper over the hard parts of dealing with timezones. There are many "right answers" for most date problems. And, they're all what you want for some context. So, the library can't be opinionated about most things.
You just need to understand how time works if you write code handling time.
cbm-vic-20
Unfortunately, not many people in our industry really understand the common pitfalls of timezone management, including the people who set the requirements. The classic "I want this to run at 2am each weekday for the user", and then proceed to simply store that as a UTC offset and call it a day (pun intended).
servercobra
I agree with everything other than "moment is great". Even the devs say don't use it any more, and accidentally mutated datetimes have been the source of bugs in apps I've worked on multiple times. Luxon is great though.
whatever1
It’s because it is not systematic historically. It’s a system full of edge cases
hnuser123456
It's also a beautiful maze of nerd snipes. There's apparently some shifting going on inside the earth, combining with the slight variability of the moon's distance, which means various days over a month can be more than a millisecond shorter than average. Good luck integrating that into your date.addDays()
shadowgovt
The really important thing to remember about timezones is they're not a mathematical construct, or a physics construct, or an astronomy construct... They're a political construct. Framed in that light, they have every bit the complexity of having some piece of your code depend on the law (except it's the law of every nation you expect to be running your code in).
neilv
This article doesn't get into some of the special fun of ISO 8601, including relative values, non-Gregorian values, durations...
Some of the things in the standard are surprising, like maybe were a special request. At the time, I commented, something like, Somewhere, in the French countryside, there is a person who runs an old family vineyard, that is still stamping their barrels with the timepoint information [...]. And that person's lover was on the ISO 8601 committee.
(I once wrote an time library in Scheme that supported everything in ISO 8601. It did parsing, representation, printing, calendar conversion, and arithmetic. Including arithmetic for mixed precision and for relative values. It was an exercise in really solving the problem the first time, for a core library, rather than cascading kludges and API breakage later. I don't recall offhand whether I tried to implement arithmetic between different calendar systems, without converting them to the same system.)
FigurativeVoid
I used to work at a company that stored all dates as ints in a YYYYMMDD format. When I asked why, I was told it was so we could subtract 2 dates to get the difference.
I asked them why they couldn’t use DATEDIFF since this was in a sql db.
They said they hadn’t heard of it and that it must be new.
dguest
Wait so one day over the new year is
2025-01-01 - 2024-12-31 = 20250101 - 20241231 = 8870
i.e. 90 months and 10 days
or 7 years 6 months and 10 days
How is that the same thing as one day?
rootsu
They might be subtracting taking first 4 digits and the subtracing yyyy-yyyy, mm-mm and dd-dd.
dguest
Which sort of works, but then you also have to deal with the cases where the days or months go negative (at the month and year bounds), and that also involves knowing how many days there are in each month. It's pretty difficult for me to imagine how this could be easier than just converting to e.g. unix time and subtracting seconds.
cortesoft
It is even worse than that, each month boundary breaks it, too:
2025-02-01 - 2025-01-31 = 20250201 - 20250131 = 70
jabroni_salad
In mainframes, Julian dates are popular for that reason. YYDDD (day of year).
When is 30 days after today? 25206+30
alexanderchr
Maybe I’m missing something but then what is 30 days after Christmas? 25389?
mpyne
25389 mod 365, presumably. The very fancy mainframes probably would pick the appropriate modulus based on whether it was a leap year or not.
xaer
I wrote the ethlo ITU library because I was annoyed with the lack of performance and large amount of ceremony to parse and format standard timestamps in RFC-3339 format in Java. It is somewhat more extensive now, and is used in other libraries. Ask me anything!
bob1029
I like to use the Japanese calendar as an example to scare the juniors away from DIY parsing:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.globaliz...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/global...
its-summertime
I put these into an ISO8601 parser and it didn't work, I'm going to tell ISO off for obviously DIYing their solution instead of doing the proper thing.
kccqzy
Do your users type in such dates? No? Problem solved.
The benefit of DIY parsing is to make the problem simple by restricting it to the set of plausible inputs your users will want your code to handle, not to make a highly general library. The right takeaway for juniors is to stop over-complicating things.
bigstrat2003
> Do your users type in such dates? No? Problem solved.
This is spot on. So many of the "X is really hard and your intuition is wrong" takes ignore the fact that most people are not building something which needs to be usable in every country, language, and culture on this earth. Yes, human behavior is insanely complex, but for any given application you can probably ignore huge swathes of it.
colesantiago
I don’t see anything wrong with this. This is actually a fun challenge.
I encourage everyone to learn how to parse the japanese calendar format.
The more people know the better!
When ever i see "never implement your own...", i know i want to implement it myself. People say that about hard things, and I only want to do hard things. Nobody wants people who can do easy things, people want people who can do hard things. The only way to learn how to do hard things, is to do hard things, so do the hardest things.
So go ahead, write your own date library, your own Unicode font rendering, compiler, OS, game engine or what ever else people tell you to never do because its hard.