From: Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov <listbox@...>
Date: 2006-08-01T20:43:47+09:00
Subject: Re: state of unicode support


On 1-aug-2006, at 12:05, Michal Suchanek wrote:

> Last time I looked ICU was in C++. Requiring a C++ compilier and
> runtime is quite a bit of bloat :)

It still is. And it's huge and takes ages to build. If only I knew  
something much lighter and better I would have dismissed it.
>
> I am not sure how large that might be. But if it is about the size of
> the interpreter including the rest of the standard libraries I would
> consider it "heavyweight". It would be a reason to start "optional
> standard libraries" I guess :)

I'm stopping right here. Unicode is not an option.

> It's been also said that giving more options does not stop you from
> using only unicode.

In 90% of the cases giving more options means programmers ignore  
Unicode, for reasons ranging from speed
to ignorance. My user experience over the years has proven it.

But then again, I stop right here. And I urge you to do the same :-)

-- 
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
please send all personal mail to
me at julik.nl