2 ms·
You're basically arguing against variable width text encodings - which is ok. But you know, it's entirely possible to use UTF32. In fact, some programming langu
by spacechild1 5y ago
You're basically arguing against variable width text encodings - which is ok. But you know, it's entirely possible to use UTF32. In fact, some programming languages use it by default to represent strings.
But again and again, all of this has nothing to do with the size of a byte.
BTW, are you aware that 8-bit Microcontrollers are still in widespread use and nowhere near of being discontinued?
- jart 5y agoUTF32 is a variable length encoding if we consider combining characters.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoStatic width text encoding + Unicode = Cannot fit a "character" in a single octet, which currently is the default addressable unit of storage/memory. Programming microcontrollers isn't considered to be "mandatory computer literacy" in college, while basic scripting, which involves understanding how text is encoded at the storage/memory level - is.
- spacechild1 5y agoAgain and again and again, a byte is not meant to hold a text character. Also, as the sibling parent has pointed out, fixed width encoding only gets you so far because it doesn't help with grapheme clusters. That's probably why the world has basically settled with UTF8: it saves memory and destroys any notion that every abstract text character can somehow be represented by a single number. > mandatory computer literacy I don't understand why you keep bringing up this phrase and ignore a huge part of real world computing. College students should simply learn how Unicode works. Are you seriously demanding that CPU designers should change their chip design instead?