Like all the other fucking incompetent assholes in this world,
the Unicode consortium has fucked it all up.

Unicode only contains 32-bit (i.e. 4 byte) characters!

Now, 32-bits is an awful lot but it's not FUTURE PROOF.

An example is the math code pages which define all currently
used math symbols -- but what about the fucking future?

Math is not dead. It will grow over the next few centuries
and so will its symbols.

What's true for math is certainly true for other areas.

Thus Unicode, in a relatively short time, will have to scrap
its current form and devise a whole new coding. The problem
is similar to the "Year 2000" or "Year 2038" issues but will
be much more difficult to resolve.

They should have started with a 64-bit, or even 128-bit,
encoding. So what if there are vast empty blocks. That
space is reserved for the future.

Unicode should be a project for millennia and not for the
lifetime of the short-sighted assholes who first introduced
it.

Note: In this, as with everything else, GNU/Linux/FOSS will
lead the way. We need universal and open standards and not
protectionism for grubbing private corps.

Farley Flud wrote:
> Like all the other fucking incompetent assholes in this world,
> the Unicode consortium has fucked it all up.
>
> Unicode only contains 32-bit (i.e. 4 byte) characters!
>
> Now, 32-bits is an awful lot but it's not FUTURE PROOF.
>
> An example is the math code pages which define all currently
> used math symbols -- but what about the fucking future?
>
> Math is not dead. It will grow over the next few centuries
> and so will its symbols.
>
> What's true for math is certainly true for other areas.
>
> Thus Unicode, in a relatively short time, will have to scrap
> its current form and devise a whole new coding. The problem
> is similar to the "Year 2000" or "Year 2038" issues but will
> be much more difficult to resolve.
>
> They should have started with a 64-bit, or even 128-bit,
> encoding. So what if there are vast empty blocks. That
> space is reserved for the future.
>
> Unicode should be a project for millennia and not for the
> lifetime of the short-sighted assholes who first introduced
> it.
>
> Note: In this, as with everything else, GNU/Linux/FOSS will
> lead the way. We need universal and open standards and not
> protectionism for grubbing private corps.
>
everything you just said is available

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:39:30 -0700, % wrote:

>> Unicode only contains 32-bit (i.e. 4 byte) characters!
>>
> everything you just said is available

Look up “zalgo text”.

Le 14-06-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :

That's a great one. With only one message, you managed to show you:
- know nothing in another subject you chose to abord (ie: unicode),
- prove you are unable to sort words with non-English characters (unlike
your claims in another message),
- know nothing about the way characters are used (ie: not about a
technical part).

> Like all the other fucking incompetent assholes in this world,
> the Unicode consortium has fucked it all up.

In fact, if a lot of things has been badly done, unicode is a really
good thing. For three reasons:
- They provided a way to stay compatible with ASCII characters, which
means old code doesn't need to be updated and it's not a small thing.
- They granted the possibility to write all the languages in the world
with only one system.
- They have been able to adapt when it was needed.
And it's far more than you can claim of your dreams.

> Unicode only contains 32-bit (i.e. 4 byte) characters!

So what?

> Now, 32-bits is an awful lot

Yep.

> but it's not FUTURE PROOF.

When will it become saturated? How many characters or defined? How many
characters are available? How long will it take to attain the limit?

> An example is the math code pages which define all currently
> used math symbols -- but what about the fucking future?

Can't you find a better example? I'll give some hint: emoji. But even
that's not enough to support your claim.

> Math is not dead. It will grow over the next few centuries
> and so will its symbols.

Of course math will still grow and other symbols will be needed. But not
by thousands. Far from it.

> What's true for math is certainly true for other areas.

Yes, I told you emoji. That's the real concern. But even for emoji,
there is a lot of availability.

> Thus Unicode, in a relatively short time,

Yes, it's relative. Comparing to the age on the universe a million years
is very short. Comparing to your life, even the children you'll never
have won't have children able to see the limit of the unicode.

> will have to scrap its current form and devise a whole new coding.

It has been able to adapt before, it will be able to adapt later. it's
the difference with you who is stuck in the past.

> The problem is similar to the "Year 2000" or "Year 2038" issues but
> will be much more difficult to resolve.

There are three different issues and unicode is the easier one to solve
because they did a great job. It's not their fault if you can't
understand it.

> They should have started with a 64-bit, or even 128-bit,
> encoding. So what if there are vast empty blocks. That
> space is reserved for the future.

What future? When unicode, as actually defined will find its limits?
When a 64 bits or 128 bit will find its limits? Because if unicode in 32
bits is limited, it would be limited with 6 or 128 bits too. So, you'll
have to know how long time it would give us.

> Unicode should be a project for millennia

In fact, it is.

> and not for the lifetime of the short-sighted assholes who first
> introduced it.

In fact, it's not. It's only your inability to understand it which is
provided in this message. It's not the great guys who created unicode
fault.

> Note: In this, as with everything else, GNU/Linux/FOSS will
> lead the way. We need universal and open standards and not
> protectionism for grubbing private corps.

The end of your message is really great. In so few words you managed to
put so many stupidities, it's impressive: it can't be random.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>> Now, 32-bits is an awful lot
>
> Yep.
>
>> but it's not FUTURE PROOF.
>
> When will it become saturated?

It won’t. This is why we have “combining forms”.

On 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
>> Unicode should be a project for millennia
>
> In fact, it is.
>

Nah. The whole world should speak English. In fact, English
is already the universal language for Internet communication.
So why insist on this Unicode "Tower of Babel?" Just have
the whole world speak English and the problem is forever solved.

The Chinese jingoists, however, will demand that Mandarin be
the universal language.

It's going to be a fun future.

Le 15-06-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>> Now, 32-bits is an awful lot
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> but it's not FUTURE PROOF.
>>
>> When will it become saturated?
>
> It won’t.

You didn't understood my questions (you kept only one, but there were
many related questions). I'm not asking you or anyone having any clue
about unicode. I know the answers and he doesn't. So, I'm asking him to
answer me to have fun because his answers would either be stupid or show
how he doesn't know anything.

Now, if you want to answer seriously, why not, but it's less funny. You
can't tell it'll never been saturated because never is a really long
time and you have no way to predict the future. New needs can arrise
you don't know about. But if we take all of the past characters and the
actual ones, we have a lot of places (I don't put the numbers because it
would spoil his answers).

They really did a great job, unlike him I know why, and I want him to
show more of his lack of knowledge.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 15-06-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>>> Unicode should be a project for millennia
>>
>> In fact, it is.
>>
>
> Nah. The whole world should speak English. In fact, English
> is already the universal language for Internet communication.

That's another great one: you never stopped, it's impressive. Any good
programmers try to solve an issue, and you proved, once again, you are
not a good programme: you can only avoid issues.

And once again, when a subject you launched is beyond your limited
intellectual abilities, you have to change it. But you are not smart
enough to do it correctly. So you switch from an issue showing you can't
explain why unicode is poorly designed to an issue showing you can't
explain why unicode is useless.

> So why insist on this Unicode "Tower of Babel?" Just have
> the whole world speak English and the problem is forever solved.

You could ask any linguist, but it would be too difficult for you to
understand their answers.

Some people, unlike you, are not stuck in the past, but study the past
and they need to write extinct languages already written. You can ask
someone dead thousands years ago to learn a language which didn't exist
at the time of his death.

And, once again, you are unable to understand the clues I gave you and
you removed them. Because, even if the clue could help you prove the
unicode will be saturated in some time, you are stuck in the past.
English speakers are using emoji and they need more than ASCII
characters to display them.

> It's going to be a fun future.

You are not part of the future, you are part of the past.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 15 Jun 2024 12:43:44 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 15-06-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>
>> On 14 Jun 2024 23:16:52 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> When will it become saturated?
>>
>> It won’t. This is why we have “combining forms”.
>
> You didn't understood my questions ...

Clearly you didn’t understand my answer.