------art_58016_18691476.1151358205337
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/26/06, Izidor Jerebic <ij.rubylist / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ahem, no.
> 100% of Ruby lanuage creators say that they need something better
> than Unicode :-)
>
> And if we get both unicode and other stuff, there is no point in
> discussing it, no?
>
> Provided we get autoconversion, of course.
>

All due respect to matz and companyand the wondrous thing they have wrought,
but *nobody* is perfect. Accepting a decision blindly based on who is making
it is a recipe for trouble. My only concern is that while the proposed m17n
implementation may make Ruby more perfect and more ideal for at least one
person, it may (emphasis on 'may') make it harder for many thousands of
others. Does that make sense? I'm sure there will be those who argue that
Ruby is matz's creation and matz's creation alone, but there's a lot of
people with a vested interest in "the Ruby way". A little critical analysis
of the "benevolent dictator's" decisions is always prudent.

If we get unicode and it's a lot harder than people like, or if it causes
unpleasant compatibility, portability, or interoperability issues, then
we're no better off.

Hey, the uber-string m17n impl might be the most amazing, remarkable thing
ever to come along. It just seems based on a lot of anecdotal evidence that
this approach is very complex and very dangerous, and arguably has never
been done right yet. matz and company are amazing hackers, but is it a good
risk to take? Is it worth it for 10% of Ruby users or less?

And again, I mean no disrespect by questioning the Ruby elders. It's just my
way.

-- 
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org
Application Architect @ www.ventera.com

------art_58016_18691476.1151358205337--