Hi,

In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?"
    on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:43:30 +0900, "Charles O Nutter" <headius / headius.com> writes:
|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.

Good point.

|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?

But unfortunately, the implementer is living among those "10% or
less".  So it's a risk already taken, choosing a language designed by
such a person. ;-)

Anyway, please give me a chance to be proven wrong (or right).
I will try not to make lives of thousands of others hard.

							matz.