25-May-2013 13:05, Joakim пишет:
On Saturday, 25 May 2013 at 08:42:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I think you stand alone in your desire to return to code pages.
Nobody is talking about going back to code pages. I'm talking about
going to single-byte encodings, which do not imply the problems that you
had with code pages way back when.
Problem is what you outline is isomorphic with code-pages. Hence the
grief of accumulated experience against them.
Code pages simply are no longer practical nor acceptable for a global
community. D is never going to convert to a code page system, and even
if it did, there's no way D will ever convince the world to abandon
Unicode, and so D would be as useless as EBCDIC.
I'm afraid you and others here seem to mentally translate "single-byte
encodings" to "code pages" in your head, then recoil in horror as you
remember all your problems with broken implementations of code pages,
even though those problems are not intrinsic to single-byte encodings.
I'm not asking you to consider this for D. I just wanted to discuss why
UTF-8 is used at all. I had hoped for some technical evaluations of its
merits, but I seem to simply be dredging up a bunch of repressed
memories about code pages instead. ;)
Well if somebody get a quest to redefine UTF-8 they *might* come up with
something that is a bit faster to decode but shares the same properties.
Hardly a life saver anyway.
The world may not "abandon Unicode," but it will abandon UTF-8, because
it's a dumb idea. Unfortunately, such dumb ideas- XML anyone?- often
proliferate until someone comes up with something better to show how
dumb they are.
Even children know XML is awful redundant shit as interchange format.
The hierarchical document is a nice idea anyway.
Perhaps it won't be the D programming language that does
that, but it would be easy to implement my idea in D, so maybe it will
be a D-based library someday. :)
Implement Unicode compression scheme - at least that is standardized.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
