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.
