@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Oh wow, we’re talking about such a detailed level. 🤔

I agree with most of what you said.

I probably would have written it like this:

// Arbitrary reference date.
//                   Y  m   d   H  M  S  nano
date := time.Date(2026, 6, 19, 17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)

Would this be better or worse? 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yeah, that would also be fine with me. I certainly do like the “arbitrary” in your comment.

While writing the article, I also thought about something like that:

date := time.Date(2026, 6, 19,
    17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)

Or possibly:

date := time.Date(
    2026, 6, 19,
    17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC,
)

But it’s four lines for a damn timestamp. I also contemplated whether a comment acting as a separator is all that’s needed:

date := time.Date(2026, 6, 19, /**/ 17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)

I might like that the most. Not entirely sure yet. It kinda feels like a hack, but still a little elegant. Add your comment on top and we’re golden. Maybe?

I deliberately excluded them as this only distracted from the points I wanted to make. And I also realized that this example was just not ideal at all. Perhaps I should add them nevertheless?

If I ever invented a programming language, a much more human readable timestamp representation of some sort, RFC 3339 or very close to that would be part of that language. Something along the lines of /pattern/ for regexes in certain languages.