On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 13:57:27 UTC, Joakim wrote:
No, I explicitly said not the web in a subsequent post. The
ignorance here of what 2G speeds are like is mind-boggling.
It's not hard. I think a lot of us remember when a 14.4 modem
was cutting-edge. Codepages and incompatible encodings were
terrible then, too.
Never again.
Well, when you _like_ a ludicrous encoding like UTF-8, not sure
your opinion matters.
It _is_ kind of ludicrous, isn't it? But it really is the
least-bad option for the most text. Sorry, bub.
No. The common string-handling use case is code that is
unaware which script (not language, btw) your text is in.
Lol, this may be the dumbest argument put forth yet.
This just makes it feel like you're trolling. You're not just
trolling, right?
I don't think anyone here even understands what a good encoding
is and what it's for, which is why there's no point in debating
this.
And I don't think you realise how backwards you sound to people
who had to live through the character encoding hell of the past.
This has been an ongoing headache for the better part of a
century (it still comes up in old files, sites, and systems) and
you're literally the only person I've ever seen seriously suggest
we turn back now that the madness has been somewhat tamed.
If you have to deal with delivering the fastest possible i18n at
GSM data rates, well, that's a tough problem and it sounds like
you might need to do something pretty special. Turning the entire
ecosystem into your special case is not the answer.
-Wyatt
