Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:07:17 +, Neil Hodgson wrote: >Not sure if you are referring to the ☃ snowman character or Arctic > region languages like Canadian Aboriginal syllabic writing like ᐲᐦᒑᔨᕽ > which were added to Unicode 8 years after the initial version. I'd guess > that was added from p

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread steve
On 08/30/2009 04:16 AM, r wrote: I was reading the thread here... http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/db90a9629b92aab0/b0385050b4c6c84e?hl=en&lnk=raot#b0385050b4c6c84e ... ... It's called evolution people! Ever heard of science? So ditch the useless Unicode and sa

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Terry Reedy
r wrote: natural languages and Unicode. Which IMO * Unicode* is simply a monkey patch for this soup of multiple languages we have to deal with in programming and communication. A somewhat fair charactierization. [snip] everyone happy? A sort of Utopian free-language-love-fest-kinda- thing?

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread John Nagle
r wrote: I was reading the thread here... http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/db90a9629b92aab0/b0385050b4c6c84e?hl=en&lnk=raot#b0385050b4c6c84e and it raised some fundamental philophosical questions Rant ignored. Actually, Python 3.x seems finally to ha

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Chris Jones
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:07:17PM EDT, Neil Hodgson wrote: > Benjamin Peterson: > > Like Sanskrit or Snowman language? > Sanskrit is mostly written in Devanagari these days which is also > useful for selling things to people who speak Hindi and other Indian > languages. Is the implication that

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Anny Mous
r wrote: > Of the many > things that divide us such as race, color, religion, geography, blah, > the most perplexing and devastating seems to be why have we not > accepted a single global language for all to speak. I agree 1000% and obviously we should make Klingon that global language. Or possib

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Neil Hodgson
Benjamin Peterson: > Like Sanskrit or Snowman language? Sanskrit is mostly written in Devanagari these days which is also useful for selling things to people who speak Hindi and other Indian languages. Not sure if you are referring to the ☃ snowman character or Arctic region languages like

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Benjamin Peterson
Neil Hodgson gmail.com> writes: \\ > > Unicode was > developed by corporations from the US left coast in order to sell their > products in foreign markets at minimal cost. Like Sanskrit or Snowman language? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread r
On Aug 29, 7:20 pm, John Machin wrote: > On Aug 30, 8:46 am, r wrote: > The Chinese language is more widely spoken than English, is quite > capable of expression in ASCII ("r tongzhi shi sha gua") and doesn't > have those pesky it's/its problems. Oh yes of course it is the most widely spoken amo

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Neil Hodgson
r: > Unicode (*puke*) seems nothing more than a brain fart of morons. And > sadly it was created by CS majors who i assumed used logic and > deductive reasoning but i must be wrong. Why should the larger world > keep supporting such antiquated languages and character sets through > Unicode? What p

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread John Machin
On Aug 30, 8:46 am, r wrote: > > Take for instance the Chinese language with it's thousands of > characters and BS, it's more of an art than a language.  Why do we > need such complicated languages in this day and time. Many languages > have been perfected, (although not perfect) far beyond that o

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Chris Jones
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 07:12:26PM EDT, Stephen Hansen wrote: > > > > Unicode (*puke*) seems nothing more than a brain fart of morons. And > > sadly it was created by CS majors who i assumed used logic and > > deductive reasoning but i must be wrong. Why should the larger world > > keep supporting

Re: An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread Stephen Hansen
> > Unicode (*puke*) seems nothing more than a brain fart of morons. And > sadly it was created by CS majors who i assumed used logic and > deductive reasoning but i must be wrong. Why should the larger world > keep supporting such antiquated languages and character sets through > Unicode? What pur

An assessment of the Unicode standard

2009-08-29 Thread r
I was reading the thread here... http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/db90a9629b92aab0/b0385050b4c6c84e?hl=en&lnk=raot#b0385050b4c6c84e and it raised some fundamental philophosical questions to me about natural languages and Unicode. Which IMO * Unicode* is simply a

<    1   2