3 ms·
> No? Or maybe author's native language is not English. :D UTF-8 does require twice as much bytes for Cyrillic, for example. Besides, there's a lot of other o
by demetrius 3y ago
> No?
Or maybe author's native language is not English. :D UTF-8 does require twice as much bytes for Cyrillic, for example.
Besides, there's a lot of other operations that happen in modern OS that makes text editing more expensive. E.g. modern applications need to account for bidirectional text, so things like "determining the correspondence between a character on screen and in memory" suddenly require table lookups to determine if the character is RTL or LTR.
- sombragris 3y agoYour conjecture is correct. I should have said that utf-8 could require more memory. My native language is not English. Apologies for any incorrections. Also, I concur with your point re: complex text editing.
- charcircuit 3y agoCyrillic can not be expressed in ASCII/ISO-8859 so comparing the size doesn't make sense.
- demetrius 3y agoWell, it can be expressed with a one-byte encoding like cp1251, cp866 or KOI8-R which are commonly (albeit incorrectly) called ASCII.