> However, we have two popular Unicode formats: UTF-8 and UTF-16 The fact we are still using UTF-16 still irks me to this day. UTF-16 (which is actually two di

> However, we have two popular Unicode formats: UTF-8 and UTF-16 The fact we are still using UTF-16 still irks me to this day. UTF-16 (which is actually two different encodings, not one, hence the need for a BOM) is basically a way to salvage all those platforms that hurried on the UCS-2 (aka, the original "UNICODE") bandwagon in the '90s hoping that by just doing s/char/wchar_t/g all their internationalization problems would be solved. It did not go well, to say the least. UTF-16 and 32 are objectively worse than UTF-8, because they still are multibyte encodings, you still have to do normalization, ... while also having to deal with "char16_t" and the likes (I will not enter into the whole "TCHAR" fiasco). Spoiler alert, the world is still full of allegedly "UTF-16 compliant" platforms out there are not, indeed, UTF-16 compliant, they just use 16 bit chars and hope for the best. The whole idea "1 char = 1 character" is arguably a terrible idea in Unicode, though. You not only can have multibyte characters, but you can also have multirune characters, where multiple codepoints are normalized into a single displayed character (just think about ` + e = è). It's a mess and it's bound to be broken, and there's no real way to "fix that up" - ASCII's assumption of "1 value = 1 char" was the broken concept here, and it unfortunately flawed how every developer (me included) thinks about strings. Sigh.