Re: Why Unicode is Shit

Le 14-06-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :

That's a great one. With only one message, you managed to show you:
- know nothing in another subject you chose to abord (ie: unicode),
- prove you are unable to sort words with non-English characters (unlike
  your claims in another message),
- know nothing about the way characters are used (ie: not about a
  technical part).

Like all the other fucking incompetent assholes in this world,
the Unicode consortium has fucked it all up.

In fact, if a lot of things has been badly done, unicode is a really
good thing. For three reasons:
- They provided a way to stay compatible with ASCII characters, which
  means old code doesn't need to be updated and it's not a small thing.
- They granted the possibility to write all the languages in the world
  with only one system.
- They have been able to adapt when it was needed.
And it's far more than you can claim of your dreams.

Unicode only contains 32-bit (i.e. 4 byte) characters!

So what?

Now, 32-bits is an awful lot

Yep.

but it's not FUTURE PROOF.

When will it become saturated? How many characters or defined? How many
characters are available? How long will it take to attain the limit?

An example is the math code pages which define all currently
used math symbols -- but what about the fucking future?

Can't you find a better example? I'll give some hint: emoji. But even
that's not enough to support your claim.

Math is not dead.  It will grow over the next few centuries
and so will its symbols.

Of course math will still grow and other symbols will be needed. But not
by thousands. Far from it.

What's true for math is certainly true for other areas.

Yes, I told you emoji. That's the real concern. But even for emoji,
there is a lot of availability.

Thus Unicode, in a relatively short time,

Yes, it's relative. Comparing to the age on the universe a million years
is very short. Comparing to your life, even the children you'll never
have won't have children able to see the limit of the unicode.

will have to scrap its current form and devise a whole new coding.

It has been able to adapt before, it will be able to adapt later. it's
the difference with you who is stuck in the past.

The problem is similar to the "Year 2000" or "Year 2038" issues but
will be much more difficult to resolve.

There are three different issues and unicode is the easier one to solve
because they did a great job. It's not their fault if you can't
understand it.

They should have started with a 64-bit, or even 128-bit,
encoding.  So what if there are vast empty blocks.  That
space is reserved for the future.

What future? When unicode, as actually defined will find its limits?
When a 64 bits or 128 bit will find its limits? Because if unicode in 32
bits is limited, it would be limited with 6 or 128 bits too. So, you'll
have to know how long time it would give us.

Unicode should be a project for millennia

In fact, it is.

and not for the lifetime of the short-sighted assholes who first
introduced it.

In fact, it's not. It's only your inability to understand it which is
provided in this message. It's not the great guys who created unicode
fault.

Note: In this, as with everything else, GNU/Linux/FOSS will
lead the way.  We need universal and open standards and not
protectionism for grubbing private corps.

The end of your message is really great. In so few words you managed to
put so many stupidities, it's impressive: it can't be random.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io