"Rainer Deyke" <rain...@eldwood.com> wrote in message news:humes8$s...@digitalmars.com... > On 6/8/2010 13:57, bearophile wrote: >> I hope we'll soon have computers with 200+ GB of RAM where using >> strings that use less than 32-bit chars is in most cases a premature >> optimization (like today is often a silly optimization to use arrays >> of 16-bit ints instead of 32-bit or 64-bit ints. Only special >> situations found with the profiler can justify the use of arrays of >> shorts in a low level language). > > Off-topic, but I don't need a profiler to tell me that my 1024x1024x1024 > arrays should use shorts instead of ints. And even when 200GB becomes > common, I'd still rather not waste that memory by using twice as much > space as I have to just because I can. > >
I think he was just musing that it would be nice to be able to ignore multiple encodings and multiple-code-units, and get back to something much closer to the blissful simplicity of ASCII. On that particular point, I concur ;)
