On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:44:42PM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > When the Unicode push started, it was agreed that we would ignore surrogates > > "for now". I sounded a caution then that I will repeat: the Unicode folks > > made a bad engineering decision, based on the (Eurocentric) assumption that > > 64K was a large enough space to meet their stated goals. Don't know how > > long it will take this half of the world to realize it, but UCS-4 is > > inevitable. > If we can put it off long enough until RAM and disk space have become > twice as cheap, I'm happy. I think 'speed' is more of an issue than 'price'. (price lowers much faster than speed rises.) However, I have to admit I've been lagging behind on the latest technologies, RAM-bus or SCRAM-jet or whatever they were called, which is supposed to allow a 1Ghz or thereabouts bus-architecture. (Which doesn't make RAM that speed, yet, but at least it evades the current bus bottleneck ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4