4 ms·
If it was only that. How about "Unicode, only Unicode, nothing but Unicode"? Doesn't it smell Microsoftish/Sunish? 16-bit data is a pain in the arse, and as lo
by mojuba 18y ago
If it was only that.
How about "Unicode, only Unicode, nothing but Unicode"? Doesn't it smell Microsoftish/Sunish? 16-bit data is a pain in the arse, and as long as communication hardware is essentially 8-bit, Unicode will never replace old good 8-bit and UTF. It will only make your I/O programming harder and the programs themselves slower, with no real benefit. UTF-8 gives you a perfect solution for all your localization needs without any special support on the compiler side.
I have mixed feelings about Python "3000". Many changes are meant to bring more consistency (if saying you shouldn't do this because it's bad is called "consistency"), however, as a result Python 3 will successfully make it into the corporate environments, but will never be truly popular among geeks. Stick with 2.6, it's nice.
- EliAndrewC 18y agoThey introduced a new "bytes" type which is basically just the old "str" type. So you can still do things the old way; if you say b"Hello World!" then it'll give you the bytes type, whereas if you say "Hello World!" then it'll give you the unicode str type.