--kA1LkgxZ0NN7Mz3A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:42:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?"
>     on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:33:19 +0900, Juergen Strobel <strobel / secure.at> writes:
> 
> |I don't think you can possibly cater to everyone here.  Simplicissity,
> |Flexibility, Performance, take any two. My impression is that M17N is
> |going for maximum flexibility with good performance, but for
> |e.g. Unicode only users there'll be some extra complexity to be aware
> |of. I don't think you'll sacrifice Unicode users totally, but it is
> |not your top priority either.
> 
> I can't promise implementation simplicity.  Because it would not be
> inside.  But I am trying to build "pseudo simplicity", which means
> simplicity in the appearance.  For example, text processing code with
> file I/O in Ruby will keep being much simpler than Java.
> 
> |And I understood you expressed this yourself in the following quote.
> 
> Don't get me wrong without context.  You've said that "this approach
> is complex, and worth it for 10% or less of Ruby users".  And I said,
> "unfortunately I am one of those 10% or less.  You cannot stop Ruby
> being (implementation) complex".  Clear?
> 
> 							matz.

First, it wasn't me who brought this up, the quote about the 10% is
from "Charles O Nutter". Second, I know a complex implementation
doesn't mean the interface has to be complex, on the contrary.

My fear is that the interface will still be more complex than really
neccessary for *me* -- not that I would expect this is reason enough
you deviate from your plans. Voicing my own concerns and wishes about
the interface design is a thing I can do though, in the hope that such
feedback will be useful to you, or at least informative to other
readers.

I still think that you won't be able to please everybody, that's just
not possible. No evangelist will ever convince me. But I am eager to
see for myself how close you can come (and where you will compromise).

-Jgen

-- 
 The box said it requires Windows 95 or better so I installed Linux

--kA1LkgxZ0NN7Mz3A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRKRcdvy64gyiEfXtAQKyAgf+KYil8cm0l5mcraq8O/L2Ts19NaRoGI4M
Sy/+GljZ4uCsBBIgFAH6etDgwp5SzZy9NJZqz3XgooEKplBB0u0Ov2IjInNkscz+
DigurIyXo3WBsQ5ujpV3Ri54EXUx9nnI0LTTb97/kG7fQShu4x21vBLevBsRL1Yq
tU9eIL/oeO0X1JKHInSbyaFAZu0StBUNfhHlJLogD0hBq80DS6I+W4RXu5juJpMw
4phc8LBO1CQ0JerPrsbGfaaUgURoxRiyuZY3rRvMeh4Z15+Dj7LH4mrGUkUnvWAa
yR5aO4AIpViPxEvng/UDvG+PKuRbGAJ9kvA/+/r3/FZp93CjGNCQ2ACw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kA1LkgxZ0NN7Mz3A--