"Ruslan Nikolaev" <nruslan_de...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mailman.127.1275974825.24349.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > True. But even simple string handling is faster for UTF-16. The time > required to read 2 bytes from UTF-16 string is the same 1 byte from UTF-8. > Generally, we have to read one code point after another (not more than > this) since data guaranteed to be aligned by 2 byte boundary for wchar and > 1 byte for char. Not to mention that converting 2 code points takes less > time in UTF-16. And why not use this opportunity if system already > natively support this? >
Why do you say that UTF-16 is faster than UTF-8? >In general, it is a good practice since 1 byte char text is not necessary >UTF-8 anyway and can be ANSI as well. > That's what the BOM is for.
