161–170 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this stuff even reinvented for every programming language? Isn't it about time that we have some common language that every other language builds on?
So said every writer of a standard immediately before writing another standard to replace all others.
What I'd like to know is, given the explosion of the character set for emoji, does the rationale for Han unification still make sense? The case for not allowing national variants seems less and less compelling with every emoji they add. This is a bit of a hobby horse, but imagine if every time you read an article in English on your phone some of the letters were replaced with "equivalent" Greek or Cyrillic one and yo…
> were replaced with "equivalent" Greek or Cyrillic one The subset of equivalent letters, or different ones? If they looked the same, it wouldn't bother me if the letters in the center were a single codepoint between European languages: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Venn_dia...
What I'd like to know is, given the explosion of the character set for emoji, does the rationale for Han unification still make sense? The case for not allowing national variants seems less and less compelling with every emoji they add. This is a bit of a hobby horse, but imagine if every time you read an article in English on your phone some of the letters were replaced with "equivalent" Greek or Cyrillic one and yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It always feels like the most amount of work goes to the least used emoji. I always feel like those emoji were added on purpose in order to force implementations to fix their unicode support. Before emoji were added, most software had completely broken support for anything beyond the BMP (case study: MySQL's so-called "UTF8" encoding). The introduction of emoji, and their immediate popularity, forced many systems t…
WTF business do emojis have in Unicode? The BMP is all there ever should have been. Standardize the actual writing systems of the world, so everyone can write in their language. And once that is done, the standard doesn't need to change for a hundred years. What we need now is a standardized, sane subset of Unicode that implementations can support while rejecting the insane scope creep that got added on top of that.…
If you think the Unicode flag emoji take a lot of bytes, then consider the family emoji! ( https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#family ) I'm in the process of designing a scripting language and implementing it in C++. I plan to put together a YouTube series about it. (Doesn't everyone want to see Bison and Flex mixed with proper unit tests and C++20 code?) Due to my future intended use case, I needed…
It always feels like the most amount of work goes to the least used emoji. So many revisions and additions to the family emoji and yet it’s one of the ones I don’t recall anyone ever using. I think the trap Unicode got in to is technically they can have infinite emoji so they just don’t ever have a way to say no to new proposals.
Yes, this adds a lot of complexity, but it's really a question of whether that complexity is justified in order to support all of the world's languages. And I think many would argue that it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Humans have incredibly complicated writing systems, and all Unicode wants to do is encode them all. Keep in mind that the trivial toy system we're more familiar with, ASCII, already has some pretty strange features because even to half-arse one human writing system they needed those features. Case is totally wild, it only applies to like 5% of the symbols in ASCII, but in the process it means they each…
>Humans have incredibly complicated writing systems Not only that, there isn't even agreement about what's correct all the time! >it doesn't understand how to spell a bunch of common English words like naïve or café, pretty disappointing. A perfect example of this, since I would argue English doesn't have any diacritics at all. So the use of café is code switching. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Humans have incredibly complicated writing systems Not only that, there isn't even agreement about what's correct all the time! >it doesn't understand how to spell a bunch of common English words like naïve or café, pretty disappointing. A perfect example of this, since I would argue English doesn't have any diacritics at all. So the use of café is code switching. :)
Not a New Yorker writer, I see....
(seriously, every time I read an article from them I get distracted/nerd sniped by their diaeresis use...)
If you think the Unicode flag emoji take a lot of bytes, then consider the family emoji! ( https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#family ) I'm in the process of designing a scripting language and implementing it in C++. I plan to put together a YouTube series about it. (Doesn't everyone want to see Bison and Flex mixed with proper unit tests and C++20 code?) Due to my future intended use case, I needed…
An interesting exercise would be emoji detection during string reversal to preserve the original emoji. I though something like that would be the crux of the article.
Am I wrong about single character emojis?