Re: [OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 16:26:36 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 16:15:15 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: What Joakim does not understand, is that there are huge, huge quantities of documents that are multi-lingual. That should be obvious to anyone living outside the USA. https://msdn.microsoft.com/th-th inside too :)
Re: [OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
On 06/01/2016 12:26 PM, deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 16:15:15 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: What Joakim does not understand, is that there are huge, huge quantities of documents that are multi-lingual. That should be obvious to anyone living outside the USA. Or anyone in the USA who's ever touched a product that includes a manual or a safety warning, or gone to high school (a foreign language class is pretty much universally mandatory, even in the US).
Re: [OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 15:02:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote: 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. UTF-8 encoded SMS work fine for me in GSM network, didn't notice any problem.
Re: [OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 16:15:15 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: What Joakim does not understand, is that there are huge, huge quantities of documents that are multi-lingual. That should be obvious to anyone living outside the USA.
Re: [OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 15:02:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote: 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. Indeed, Joakim's proposal is so insane it beggars belief (why not go back to baudot encoding, it's only 5 bit, hurray, it's so much faster when used with flag semaphores). As a programmer in the European Commission translation unit, working on the probably biggest translation memory in the world for 14 years, I can attest that Unicode is a blessing. When I remember the shit we had in our documents because of the code pages before most programs could handle utf-8 or utf-16 (and before 2004 we only had 2 alphabets to take care of, Western and Greek). What Joakim does not understand, is that there are huge, huge quantities of documents that are multi-lingual. Translators of course handle nearly exclusively with at least bi-lingual documents. Any document encountered by a translator must at least be able to present the source and the target language. But even outside of that specific population, multilingual documents are very, very common. 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.
[OT] The Case Against... Unicode?
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
