[OT] The Case Against... Unicode?

[Wyatt via Digitalmars-d]

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