3 ms·
The article almost makes it sound like UTF-8 was a Plan9 invention. I also don't understand why using UTF-8 was a bad idea. If I start a new OS from scratch, I
by bhaak 10y ago
The article almost makes it sound like UTF-8 was a Plan9 invention.
I also don't understand why using UTF-8 was a bad idea. If I start a new OS from scratch, I would have to be brain-damaged to not use UTF-8 as the sole encoding (and other encodings being treated as second class citizens).
I can understand the issue with taking the file abstraction to perfection. If by doing that you are incompatible to most of the software there is, you're going to have a hard time getting developers to develop for your OS. This could be somewhat alleviated with a ioctl compatibility library for the time being.
- jflatow 10y ago> The article almost makes it sound like UTF-8 was a Plan9 invention. It more or less was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#History
- bhaak 10y agoPlan9 and UTF-8 were invented by the same people. But Plan9 didn't influence the design of UTF-8 only in as far as having a better character encoding than the original 2 byte UCS encoding. And then Plan9 was used to showcase UTF-8.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoCharacter indexing in UTF-8 is O(n). That's not enough to kill the awesome parts of it, though.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIs there a list of alternatives with various tradfoffs mentioned?
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoUTF-32 is kinda-sorta O(1), but not really if you want to get what a user logically claims to a character.
- slededit 10y agoIt is for all but UTF-32. And even in the case of UTF-32 if you are indexing for what a user would logically consider a character then its O(n) there is well because of combining characters.