# SE-0329: Clock, Instant, Date, and Duration

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0329-clock-instant-date-and-duration/53309>\
**Category:** Proposal Reviews\
**Created:** [November 5, 2021, 2:30am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0329-clock-instant-date-and-duration/53309 "2021-11-05T02:30:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 41

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Karl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/34f0e0/32.png) [@Karl](https://forums.swift.org/u/Karl)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 9:26am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0329-clock-instant-date-and-duration/53309/41 "2021-11-15T09:26:29Z")

</div>

> [@hassila](#):
>
> Well, the pushback was so strong [so the question was posed](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-clock-instant-date-and-duration/52451/198) whether the authors agreed that Date is misleading at all and whether it was technically possible with alternative spellings, because if not even agreeing on that basic thing discussing alternatives seemed fruitless (and there was no answer to that question, which at least made me assume that there was little alternative to discuss options).

Not only that, but the author made _extremely tenuous_ claims that there was impossible unless we were willing to break ABI, that it might have to wait until Swift 6 and even then probably wouldn't meet the bar for breaking changes. I immediately called that out as being inaccurate, and that has now been confirmed.

Personally, I favour the name `Timestamp`. It is claimed that there are arguments against it, but the only argument I can find from the pitch thread is this:

> [@\[Pitch\] Clock, Instant, Date, and Duration](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-clock-instant-date-and-duration/52451/194):
>
> > [@\[Pitch\] Clock, Instant, Date, and Duration](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-clock-instant-date-and-duration/52451/192):
> >
> > I've never heard of anyone seeing the name "timestamp" and wondering "does this mean 'October 12, 2021'?"
> 
> From wikipedia:
> 
> > A **timestamp** is a sequence of characters or encoded information identifying when a certain event occurred

Which I find to be just as flimsy as the ABI claims. That [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timestamp) makes clear that there are _many forms_ of timestamps, including literal rubber stamps, and its example section includes precisely the kind of epoch-relative timestamps which `Date` represents. The article's section on "Digital timestamps" refers to the article "Timestamping (computing)", which it defines as _"the use of an electronic [timestamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timestamp) to provide a temporal order among a set of events."_ Which is a perfectly fine definition.

The entire idea of changing the name has been met with nothing but hostility from the Foundation team.  
It is rather disappointing. I'm sure we'd all rather not fight over this, but at the same time, the rest of the community seems to unanimously consider the name `Date` to be unacceptable.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0329-clock-instant-date-and-duration/53309)._