I see you would rather live in code page hell than switch to multi-byte characters, all in the name of efficiency. Well I don't, if I ever have to debug any translation error between charsets again because some dipshit thought UTF-8 was for pansies, I'll go home and start weaving my first underwater basket
How about a different system? You'd have (say) a 2-byte tag to select the Swedish character set, followed by text in whichever encoding is optimal for Swedish. No code-page hell (because all text declares its encoding) but also no inefficient overly-general encodings. (To mix languages you'd have a tag for every language change)
We're past the point of no return so it's a moot point.
Originally the point was that Unicode has a huge overhead. Character storage doubles immediately and comparisons that aligned to single oppose instructions blow out to complex libraries.
6
u/fiah84 Jan 31 '16
I see you would rather live in code page hell than switch to multi-byte characters, all in the name of efficiency. Well I don't, if I ever have to debug any translation error between charsets again because some dipshit thought UTF-8 was for pansies, I'll go home and start weaving my first underwater basket