|
|
|
|
|
by Manishearth
3390 days ago
|
|
I hate this argument every time I see it because it's invariably used in the wrong place. Yes, the goal of encoding all human languages into bits is one that's near impossible. Unicode tries, and has broken half-solutions in many places. Lots of heartache everywhere. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. The issue of code points not always mapping to graphemes is only an issue because programmers ignore it. It's a completely solved problem, theoretically speaking. It's necessary to be able to handle many scripts, but it's not something that "breaks" unicode. |
|
lol.
Unicode was ambitious for its time, but naive. Today we know better. It "jumped the shark" when the pizza slice showed up and has only been getting stupider since. Eventually it will go the way of XML (yes, I know XML hasn't gone anywhere, shut up) and we will be using some JSON hottness (forgive the labored metaphor please!) that probably consist of a wad of per-language standards and ML/AI/NLP stuff, etc.. blah blah hand-wave.)
Unicode just sucks.