Vim's learning curve is wrong

This image has been around for years:

(I actually found this blog post while searching for the image, it's worth a quick read but touches on a different point.)

Here's my first complaint. The axes aren't labeled. Well, I guess that's better than being incorrectly labeled, since now you have a chance to interpret it correctly. The horizontal axis being time is usually a good guess, and in this case is correct. (Which is why emacs is funny.) Learning curves are fairly arbitrary anyway. I think that they're supposed to measure the rate at which one acquires knowledge or ability, the rate at which one learns. They're supposed to measure velocity. Typically, however, creators of graphs intend them to measure either difficulty, frustration, or total ability or amount learned, with perhaps specific pieces of knowledge along the way. They represent your position. Position where? On some path to total mastery. In the above graph, we have a lot of interpretations to work with. I'm going to present the Proper Interpretation of each editor, which is the interpretation I chose for this post, and then explain why vim's is wrong no matter how you look at it.

Apache's Common Log Format Datetime converted to Unix Timestamp with C++

The datetime in Apache's log format looks like this: day/month/year:hour:minute:second zone. It usually has wrapping brackets but I'm assuming those have been taken care of. The datetime format has a standard name but I don't remember it right now. An example would be "04/Apr/2012:10:37:29 -0500".

This is great for displaying to humans but annoying to pass around to computers, so let's convert it to a Unix timestamp that is simply the number of seconds since the Unix epoch, i.e. 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000. Notice that since the simple seconds timestamp has no time zone information, that information will be lost.

The code, released in public domain (I don't think one could assert copyright over this anyway):