Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.proxad.net!nnrp6-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: =?UTF-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane?= CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Subject: Re: Why Unicode is Shit
References: <17d8f953df0055c6$92217$3210899$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
Organization: Mulots' Killer
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <666ccf64$0$7511$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jun 2024 01:16:52 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 78.201.248.7
X-Trace: 1718407012 news-1.free.fr 7511 78.201.248.7:53474
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 4567

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