Why UTF-8/16 character encodings?

[Marcin Mstowski]

Character Data Representation
Architecture<http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/cdra/>by
IBM. It is what you want to do with additions and it is available
since
1995.
When you come up with an inventive idea, i suggest you to first check what
was already done in that area and then rethink this again to check if you
can do this better or improve existing solution. Other approaches are
usually waste of time and efforts, unless you are doing this for fun or you
can't use existing solutions due to problems with license, copyrights,
price, etc.


On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 18:29:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/13 1:45 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>> What is extraordinary about "UTF-8 is shit?" It is obviously so.
>>>
>>
>> Congratulations, you are literally the only person on the Internet who
>> said so: http://goo.gl/TFhUO
>>
> Haha, that is funny, :D though "unicode is shit" returns at least 8
> results.  How many people even know how UTF-8 works?  Given how few people
> use it, I'm not surprised most don't know enough about how it works to
> criticize it.
>
>
>  On 5/26/13 1:45 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>> Or it could just be that I'm much smarter than everybody else in this
>>> thread, ;) I can't rule it out given the often silly responses I've been
>>> getting.
>>>
>>
>> One odd thing about this thread is it's extremely rare that most
>> everybody in this forum raises like one to the same opinion. Usually it's
>> like whatever the topic, a debate will ensue between two ad-hoc groups.
>>
> I suspect it's because I'm presenting an original idea about a not
> well-understood technology, Unicode, not the usual "emacs vs vim" or "D
> should not have null references" argument.  For example, how many here know
> what UCS is?  Most people never dig into Unicode, it's just a black box
> that is annoying to deal with.
>
>
>  It has become clear that people involved in this have gotten too
>> frustrated to have a constructive exchange. I suggest we collectively drop
>> it. What you may want to do is to use D's modeling abilities to define a
>> great string type pursuant to your ideas. If it is as good as you believe
>> it could, then it will enjoy use and adoption and everybody will be better
>> off.
>>
> I agree.  I am enjoying your book, btw.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130526/65642904/attachment.html>