8 ms·
> In summary: a massive headache, avoid if possible. Will do. If its more complicated than a box-character, it doesn't belong in my terminal :-)
by usrbinbash 5y ago
> In summary: a massive headache, avoid if possible.
Will do. If its more complicated than a box-character, it doesn't belong in my terminal :-)
- Galanwe 5y agoWhoever started putting Unicode everywhere instead of sticking it to word processing destroyed an entire generation.
- _ZeD_ 5y agoKeep in mind that "graphics" in console is ... old, as old as ascii-art and box-drawing characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-drawing_character#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-drawing_character#Examples
- Symbiote 5y agoAre you suggesting Lærke shouldn't be able to put her name in a filename? Or that I can't type my address, which contains ø?
- collegeburner 5y ago
- colejohnson66 5y ago> use English as the "computer language" instead. That's how we get COBOL
- willm 5y agoотъебись ابتعد भाड़ में जाओ Γαμήσου Sincerely, The rest of the world.
- usrbinbash 5y ago> to use English as the "computer language" This is "computer language": for i := 0; i <= x.tctl_b(); i++ { v, e := x.getg[i].pop() if e != nil { log.Fatalf("%v\nloop", e) } } So is this imul 8(%rsp), %rax So is this shopt -s globstar && grep -sn '\xFF' ** Whether we translate the meaning of the above into Mandarin, English, Spanish, Japanese, Swedish, Farsi, Swhaili, Hindi, Latin, Klingon, Dothraki, Sindarin or any other spoken, written or invented language we chose to be comfortable with, makes exactly zero difference.
- collegeburner 5y agoI mean use English as a universal language for users interacting with computers. It is a good way to force people to learn and use English. Like how American materiel with English documentation did so before.
- schwartzworld 5y ago> It is a good way to force people to learn and use English. Why do we want to force programmers around the world to learn and use english?
- numpad0 5y agoSadly the language is part of thought process and English isn't really universal enough when it comes to representing every mode of thoughts. Whatever Chomsky et al argued is just a language equivalent of Turing completeness, like technically Scheme and Swift and Visual BASIC all compile into x86 and are Turing complete but you can't make a simple conversion tool to go between them.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoThe computer adapts to the human, not the other way around.
- slooonz 5y agoUnicode and utf-8 are fine. The one at fault is the one who thought that Unicode was a good place to put things like "GIANT POOP WITH FLIES".
- colejohnson66 5y agoEmoji was originally added because of Unicode's mission. It wasn't some rando who thought, "we should put a smiley face emoji". It was because Japanese phones used JIS encodings that had them in it.
- reidjs 5y agoI use the poop emoji often, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Sometimes it’s faster to convey an idea with that than with a sentence.
- dpark 5y agoEmojis seem very much like a net positive in terms of getting developers in western nations to think about support for non-Latin characters. Poop emoji might be dumb, but it doesn’t seem to hurt anything and if it makes developers support Unicode better, awesome.
- usrbinbash 5y agoUnicode, and its encoding in utf-8 are fine. Being able to parse every character of every written language, including symbols, using the same logic, was one of the best things that happened to computing.
- yencabulator 5y ago> Being able to parse every character of every written language, including symbols Clearly the article is demonstrating that this hasn't come true.
- colejohnson66 5y agoI've noticed that a large chunk of the people who reject caring about Unicode support are those who never have to deal with the consequences of forcing ASCII and English/Western ideals on everyone. Take something as simple as names: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
- rkangel 5y agoThat's an incredibly English (speaking) centric view of machine design. Why should our 26 letter alphabet with only two cases be the restrictive set of characters that everybody in the world has to write terminal commands and filenames and code in? Are you saying that all code should be written in English? Even without bringing up languages with different writing systems, 7 bit ASCII doesn't allow you to correctly write words in many western languages.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- collegeburner 5y ago
- usrbinbash 5y ago> English is the language of the world Math is the language of the universe. How am I supposed to represent/parse/write mathematical symbols like ∊ or ℚ or π or µ or ⊃ or ⎷ or ⋦ or ∑ when I only have ASCII?
- collegeburner 5y agoHmm fair point. I think maybe stuff like LaTeX is better for domain-specific though. Still we could have a much simpler unicode with a max 2-byte character and characters with consistent width, no joining/merging/shaping, eliminate the need for harfbuzz if we just refuse to support non-English human languages on computers.
- colejohnson66 5y agoThat’s what we had before Unicode, and it was hell. Every country had their own opinions on what to put in the blank spaces in the codepoint map. As for a max 2-byte encoding, UCS-2 tried that. Turns out 65k points isn’t enough (even ignoring emoji), and now we have the hack known as UTF-16. Unicode currently encompasses over 144 thousand codepoints. How many are emoji? Only ~3.5k. So even if we removed emoji, 16 bits still wouldn’t be nearly enough. Instead of saying we should go back to the past, one should first see why we don’t do the things we did in that past
- collegeburner 5y agoI always wonder why this complexity is necessary. For family, just make 1 static graphic with husband, wife, son, daughter. For color just make them all yellow. No mess of joining things like this.
- dpark 5y agoI know, right? Just make the family 2 guys, one black and one white, with 4 kids of various skin tones. Everyone will definitely be happy with that representation. It’s a legitimate family after all.
- collegeburner 5y ago
- dpark 5y ago> it's not a normal one I want to laugh but this is sadder than it is funny. Your definition of a “normal” family is literally heterosexual and white* (certainly not interracial). This is exactly why people want emoji to be more representative. They don’t agree that their families are “not normal”. *Make no mistake, “yellow” is still a proxy for white skin. If the skin tone chosen were, say, dark orange, it would be exactly as realistic as yellow but white people would have a hard time identifying with the color and would be upset.
- collegeburner 5y agoMy definition of a normal family is straight because that's what the vast majority are... if you want to convey a concept easily use the common version. No issue with orange skin instead, or grey, or whatever else. Lots of advertisements recently use blue, green, pink, purple, whatever to purposely not be specific skin tones.
- dpark 5y agoI’m not sure what to say to you here. You’re quite literally saying that it should just please the majority. Not for any technical reason, either. Representing families of different sorts is entirely feasible technically. I could totally understand a “don’t bother supporting emoji at all” stance, because that would actually simplify, but that’s not what you’re saying. > Lots of advertisements recently use blue,… I can’t recall ever seeing this. When I see commercials, they’re generally real people, plus that one gecko. I haven’t seen this in print advertisements either but I don’t see a lot of print advertisements in general.
- saba2008 5y agoPutting Unicode everywhere is great. Turning Unicode into clipart collection is not.