Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
Kat wrote:
<snip>
>> Assume that this new byte scheme BLOATS Euphoria into the
>> 800 KB realm. So now as Rob says, You are WASTING 80 KB more
>> than you where before. Assume you have written a program that
>> under the old scheme abused 16,000 KB of memory. But, using
>> the new byte scheme you could store the same amount of data
>> using only 4,000 KB. This frees up 12,000 KB of memory.
>> When you are freeing up 12,000 KB who cares about the 80 KB
>> wasted?
>
>While you try to lock Euphoria into 8 bits per character, i'd like to refer
>everyone else to http://www.unicode.org/ , where the standard is 16 bits,
>for the reasons i gave earlier.
Hmmm... while the advantages of Rob's current scheme are very valid,
I think I'd like to state here that I'm not sure he would be better off
putting stock in the Unicode "standard".
According to other postings on this list, Unicode is tragically
insufficient for its most notable goal: handling global character sets.
Norm's Chinese characters alone (for his Eu project) number--what, around
45,000? And then Japanese takes the same number... already the 65,536
characters of Unicode are blown away, by only two languages. Apparently,
Unicode simply CANNOT do what it is trying to, at least not without severe
compromise. That being the case, why try to make use of it? If anything, a
3-byte scheme (or 4-byte) would make more sense (Super Unicode?), but then
those of us with languages that do just fine under ASCII might start to
balk. 
Rod
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
