David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 31/08/2021 11:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> > On 2021-08-31 09:36, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> My understanding (which may be wrong, as I don't do much Windows
> >> programming) is that there is a gradual move to UTF-8 support in
> >> Windows.
> >
> > I think you are right. Actually they could proclaim A-calls UTF-8 as
> > they did with W-calls. That would break some legacy code, only French
> > will be annoyed. Germans will be apathic, small European countries
> > resigned, I guess...
>
> You are just listing the advantages :-)
>
> >
> >> These things take time of course, and while there is no doubt
> >> that Microsoft backed the wrong horse here with 16-bit encodings, they
> >> made the right choice at the time.
> >
> >> I blame MS for a lot of bad things,
> >> but not this one!? And they are not alone - Java, QT and Python are
> >> other big players that picked UCS-2, leading to much regret and slow
> >> progress towards a changeover to UTF-8.
> >
> > I believe that UTF-8 was introduced later.
>
> Yes. Unicode was first conceives as 16-bit, with UCS-2. Then they
> started extending it beyond 16-bit, and had to make UCS-4. UTF-16 was
> developed as a way to access the rest of the characters with 16-bit code
> units, and then I think UTF-8 came after that. (UTF-32 is the same as
> UCS-4.)

Well, there was insane ISO proposal, which was then partially
unified with Unicode: ISO had 31-bit characters, with first
2^16 codes (BMP) identical to Unicode. At that time ISO proposed
their 8-bit transportation format. Around this time UTF-8 was
born, as simpler alternative to ISO format. Later, ISO
agreed to limit charaters to about 20 bits, Unicode agreed to expand
to match and UTF-16 was born. So, in fact UTF-8 came first
and UTF-16 later. Of course, 16-bit Unicode was before UTF-8.

--
Waldek Hebisch

On 30/08/2021 10:50, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/08/2021 10:38, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On 2021-08-30 10:13, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> There are, I think, only two sensible options here:
>>>
>>> 1. Disallow any identifier letters outside of ASCII.
>>> 2. Make everything UTF-8.

IMO there's a better option:

3. Use purely ASCII but allow escape sequences to be coded in ASCII.

....

> It can also be difficult for people to type, which can quickly be a pain
> for collaboration. How would you type "bøk", for example?

I'd could allow that to be used in string literals with something like

"b\slash:o/k"

As well as string literals it is unlikely but possible that a program
written in my language would have to call a function from another
language which has been written in Norwegian where the function name
included a non-ASCII character. For that, I am considering allowing

\slash:o/

and similar to appear in the name of external functions. It would be
ugly but clear. And programmers could limit the ugliness to one place by
defining an alias as in

namedef book = b\slash:o/k

book()

Wouldn't that be better than either pure ASCII or allowing Unicode?

Have I got all bases covered? I hope so!

--
James Harris

On 30/08/2021 19:13, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/08/2021 13:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

....

>> Actually, this is again sort of Europocentric POV. In reality, if you
>> have a truly international team with speakers outside Western Europe,
>> you must agree on some strict rules regarding comments and identifiers.

....

>> And the least common denominator is English.
>>
>
> It is the least common denominator for most international groups, but
> not for most national teams.

A program whose master copy was in a well-known language - such as
American English - would be a lot easier to translate to other languages
than normal prose.

--
James Harris

On 06/09/2021 20:30, James Harris wrote:
> On 30/08/2021 10:50, David Brown wrote:
>> On 30/08/2021 10:38, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-30 10:13, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are, I think, only two sensible options here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Disallow any identifier letters outside of ASCII.
>>>> 2. Make everything UTF-8.
>
> IMO there's a better option:
>
> 3. Use purely ASCII but allow escape sequences to be coded in ASCII.
>
> ...
>
>> It can also be difficult for people to type, which can quickly be a pain
>> for collaboration.  How would you type "bøk", for example?
>
> I'd could allow that to be used in string literals with something like
>
>   "b\slash:o/k"
>
> As well as string literals it is unlikely but possible that a program
> written in my language would have to call a function from another
> language which has been written in Norwegian where the function name
> included a non-ASCII character. For that, I am considering allowing
>
>   \slash:o/
>
> and similar to appear in the name of external functions. It would be
> ugly but clear. And programmers could limit the ugliness to one place by
> defining an alias as in
>
>   namedef book = b\slash:o/k
>
>   book()
>
> Wouldn't that be better than either pure ASCII or allowing Unicode?
>
> Have I got all bases covered? I hope so!
>

All the bases except for the ones concerning what people writing other
languages would actually see as usable. If this is your "solution", you
are better off saying "pure 7-bit ASCII only" and be done with it,
because no one would /ever/ want to use that.

On 06/09/2021 22:12, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/09/2021 20:30, James Harris wrote:
>> On 30/08/2021 10:50, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 30/08/2021 10:38, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On 2021-08-30 10:13, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are, I think, only two sensible options here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Disallow any identifier letters outside of ASCII.
>>>>> 2. Make everything UTF-8.
>>
>> IMO there's a better option:
>>
>> 3. Use purely ASCII but allow escape sequences to be coded in ASCII.

....

>> it is unlikely but possible that a program
>> written in my language would have to call a function from another
>> language which has been written in Norwegian where the function name
>> included a non-ASCII character. For that, I am considering allowing
>>
>>   \slash:o/
>>
>> and similar to appear in the name of external functions. It would be
>> ugly but clear. And programmers could limit the ugliness to one place by
>> defining an alias as in
>>
>>   namedef book = b\slash:o/k
>>
>>   book()
>>
>> Wouldn't that be better than either pure ASCII or allowing Unicode?
>>
>> Have I got all bases covered? I hope so!
>>
>
> All the bases except for the ones concerning what people writing other
> languages would actually see as usable.

This is not for writing in other languages. Under the scheme I have in
mind Norwegians could write and edit a program in Norwegian! They could
use Norwegian identifiers and Norwegian comments; they could type
Norwegian characters in string literals and even in external
identifiers, if they felt it necessary. But there would be a table-based
(i.e. programmer-configured) translation between the Norwegian version
of a program and the American English master version. (E.g. a table
would be used to allow bidirectional translation of identifier name
"bøk" to or from "book".) So Norwegian speakers and English speakers
should be able to work on the same program.

The issue I was talking about was just about linking.

Linking to other modules written in my language should be easy as they,
also, would have to have American English master copies with matching
external identifier names.

Linking to programs written in other languages should also be doable
(with a bit of control of calling sequences) if those programs use Ascii
identifiers.

It's only if someone wanted to link with a program written in another
programming language which used a non-Ascii identifier that the
aforementioned escape sequence would be needed to refer to that
identifier. So a rare case, indeed, I believe, but one which is possible.

--
James Harris

On 01/09/2021 09:16, David Brown wrote:
> On 31/08/2021 20:37, James Harris wrote:
>> On 30/08/2021 19:13, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 30/08/2021 13:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On 2021-08-30 11:50, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> All in all, non-ASCII letters in identifiers can pose a lot of
>>>>> challenges.  But they are nonetheless important for people around the
>>>>> world, and despite the disadvantages, UTF-8 is far and away the best
>>>>> choice.  You simply have to trust programmers to be sensible in their
>>>>> usage.  (You need to to that anyway, even with ASCII - in many
>>>>> fonts, l,
>>>>> 1 and I can be hard to distinguish, as can O and 0.)
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this is again sort of Europocentric POV. In reality, if you
>>>> have a truly international team with speakers outside Western Europe,
>>>> you must agree on some strict rules regarding comments and identifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you have an international team, then it is standard practice to keep
>>> everything in English.  But most teams are not international.  Why
>>> should a group of Greek or Japanese programmers be forced to write
>>> everything in a foreign language?  You can view the keywords as fixed -
>>> almost like symbols, rather than words - but they may prefer to have
>>> other parts written in their own language.
>>
>> AISI: Have the master copy of /all/ programs in American English, and
>> support translation of identifier names, comments, string literals etc
>> to other languages.
>>
>
> Why would anyone choose the dialect of one particular ex colony, rather
> than using /real/ English?
>
> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of the
> world begs to differ.
>

AmE is more heavily used - especially in IT - so it makes more sense to
use it as a lingua franca. For example, an identifier might be called
TextColor rather than TextColour.

There is precedent for that kind of choice. Music terms such as andante
and pianissimo are in Italian. Speakers of other languages still work
with them.

--
James Harris

On 22/10/2021 16:09, James Harris wrote:
> On 01/09/2021 09:16, David Brown wrote:

>> Why would anyone choose the dialect of one particular ex colony, rather
>> than using /real/ English?
>>
>> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
>> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of the
>> world begs to differ.
>>
>
> AmE is more heavily used - especially in IT - so it makes more sense to
> use it as a lingua franca. For example, an identifier might be called
> TextColor rather than TextColour.
>
> There is precedent for that kind of choice. Music terms such as andante
> and pianissimo are in Italian. Speakers of other languages still work
> with them.

Those are pure Italian.

Not Anglicised-Italian that is going to annoy natives of that country if
they were obliged to use them.

For example, 'panini' used to refer to a single bun, when 'panini' is
actually plural.

So I like to write Colour not Color. We invented the language after all!

(By 'we' I mean the British, though my passport says otherwise.)

However, I do use 'disk' and 'program' rather than 'disc' and
'programme', as the former are now firmly associated with computing.

On 22/10/2021 20:20, Bart wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 16:09, James Harris wrote:
>> On 01/09/2021 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>
>>> Why would anyone choose the dialect of one particular ex colony, rather
>>> than using /real/ English?
>>>
>>> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
>>> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of the
>>> world begs to differ.
>>>
>>
>> AmE is more heavily used - especially in IT - so it makes more sense
>> to use it as a lingua franca. For example, an identifier might be
>> called TextColor rather than TextColour.
>>
>> There is precedent for that kind of choice. Music terms such as
>> andante and pianissimo are in Italian. Speakers of other languages
>> still work with them.
>
> Those are pure Italian.
>
> Not Anglicised-Italian that is going to annoy natives of that country if
> they were obliged to use them.
>
> For example, 'panini' used to refer to a single bun, when 'panini' is
> actually plural.

Similar with graffiti. Or paparazi.

>
> So I like to write Colour not Color. We invented the language after all!

That's all very well but with most IT standards coming out of America
the spelling 'Color' is used - and inbuilt - more frequently. Surely
it's better to have one spelling than to continually ask which spelling
is used in a certain case.

One could still present to users the spelling which suits them while
program object names would be in American English. That applies in the
filesystem, too. For example, yesterday I got a message about not being
able to move files to my 'rubbish bin'. American users get told about
the 'trash can'. French users possibly get told about the 'poubelle'.
But the folder in the file system still has the American name
'.Trash-UID'. That's easier to work with than renaming the folder for
each locale, isn't it?!!!

>
> (By 'we' I mean the British, though my passport says otherwise.)

Curious. If you can reply without giving too much away what does it say?

>
> However, I do use 'disk' and 'program' rather than 'disc' and
> 'programme', as the former are now firmly associated with computing.

As long as you don't try to catch fishes. ;-)

BTW, for computer programs, at school I was taught that 'program' was
correct.

--
James Harris

On 23/10/2021 09:59, James Harris wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 20:20, Bart wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 16:09, James Harris wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2021 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> Why would anyone choose the dialect of one particular ex colony, rather
>>>> than using /real/ English?
>>>>
>>>> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
>>>> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of
>>>> the
>>>> world begs to differ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> AmE is more heavily used - especially in IT - so it makes more sense
>>> to use it as a lingua franca. For example, an identifier might be
>>> called TextColor rather than TextColour.
>>>
>>> There is precedent for that kind of choice. Music terms such as
>>> andante and pianissimo are in Italian. Speakers of other languages
>>> still work with them.
>>
>> Those are pure Italian.
>>
>> Not Anglicised-Italian that is going to annoy natives of that country
>> if they were obliged to use them.
>>
>> For example, 'panini' used to refer to a single bun, when 'panini' is
>> actually plural.
>
> Similar with graffiti. Or paparazi.
>
>>
>> So I like to write Colour not Color. We invented the language after all!
>
> That's all very well but with most IT standards coming out of America
> the spelling 'Color' is used - and inbuilt - more frequently. Surely
> it's better to have one spelling than to continually ask which spelling
> is used in a certain case.

This is a line from one of my interface files for WinAPI functions:

windows function "GetSysColor" as getsyscolour (wt_int)wt_dword

So I can refer to it as getsyscolor (proper case can be dropped), or
getsyscolour; I use the latter. Typing 'color' makes it look like I
can't spell.

> One could still present to users the spelling which suits them while
> program object names would be in American English. That applies in the
> filesystem, too. For example, yesterday I got a message about not being
> able to move files to my 'rubbish bin'. American users get told about
> the 'trash can'. French users possibly get told about the 'poubelle'.
> But the folder in the file system still has the American name
> '.Trash-UID'. That's easier to work with than renaming the folder for
> each locale, isn't it?!!!

The APIs I've made available use British English spellings of words like
'colour'. (I can't think of any other examples; terms like 'windscreen'
or 'boot' don't really come up in my libraries.)

I don't think there's any need to pander to American spellings and make
that form of English even more dominant. It is annoying that
spell-checkers on various sites default to US dictionaries so don't like
my -ise endings or 'll's in certain workds.

>
>>
>> (By 'we' I mean the British, though my passport says otherwise.)
>
> Curious. If you can reply without giving too much away what does it say?

I gave a hint in my post...

>> However, I do use 'disk' and 'program' rather than 'disc' and
>> 'programme', as the former are now firmly associated with computing.
>
> As long as you don't try to catch fishes. ;-)
>
> BTW, for computer programs, at school I was taught that 'program' was
> correct.

'Programme' is more what the BBC produces; it doesn't sound right for
computer code. I'm still trying to figure out the fishes..

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:04:03 +0100
James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I've been taking the top off a chimney stack
> >
> > Why?
>
> It's letting water in.
>
> I was thinking to remove the whole chimney stack as it is no longer
> used but then I wondered whether the local authority might tell me to
> reinstate it. That would not be good, especially as the bricks I've
> removed so far are soft and are breaking. So current idea is to
> remove the dodgy top layer or two and cap it while we have some dry
> weather. (Though I am very wary about being able to lift a 2' square
> concrete cap up the ladder without putting so much sideways pressure
> on the stack such that it falls over!)
>

Well, if you haven't already, you might just check your home owner's
insurance. The insurance company might prohibit "major" construction
jobs being done by home owner.

<end O/T>

--
Is this the year that Oregon ceases to exist?

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:16:13 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 31/08/2021 20:37, James Harris wrote:
> > On 30/08/2021 19:13, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 30/08/2021 13:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >>> On 2021-08-30 11:50, David Brown wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>> All in all, non-ASCII letters in identifiers can pose a lot of
> >>>> challenges.  But they are nonetheless important for people
> >>>> around the world, and despite the disadvantages, UTF-8 is far
> >>>> and away the best choice.  You simply have to trust programmers
> >>>> to be sensible in their usage.  (You need to to that anyway,
> >>>> even with ASCII - in many fonts, l,
> >>>> 1 and I can be hard to distinguish, as can O and 0.)
> >>>
> >>> Actually, this is again sort of Europocentric POV. In reality, if
> >>> you have a truly international team with speakers outside Western
> >>> Europe, you must agree on some strict rules regarding comments
> >>> and identifiers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you have an international team, then it is standard practice to
> >> keep everything in English.  But most teams are not international.
> >> Why should a group of Greek or Japanese programmers be forced to
> >> write everything in a foreign language?  You can view the keywords
> >> as fixed - almost like symbols, rather than words - but they may
> >> prefer to have other parts written in their own language.
> >
> > AISI: Have the master copy of /all/ programs in American English,
> > and support translation of identifier names, comments, string
> > literals etc to other languages.
> >
>
> Why would anyone choose the dialect of one particular ex colony,
> rather than using /real/ English?

I always wondered why people in France or Spain or Italy would choose
to program in a programming language where they had to first learn a
foreign language, such as English, to do so. Ditto China, Japan,
....

It's enough of a task to learn to program, but to then need to learn a
foreing language too? In C, they could place a bunch of #define's to
convert English to French or Spanish or Italian, but that wouldn't work
so well with Mandarin or Japanese, etc.

Now, if the code was save as tokenized, then it could rather easily be
displayed for multiple languages.

> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of
> the world begs to differ.

If you meant to insult James here, I think you failed. IIRC, he's in
the U.K. So, he's probably British. On the other hand, I'm in the
U.S., descended from British ancestors (AFAIK), and, yes, the U.S.
population and it's news media isn't generally globally oriented. We
often don't even know what is going on in Mexico or Canada. That is
often, unfortunately, portrayed as self-centered or narcissistic. In
reality, it's more of a too much to do, too much to enjoy, too little
time for it all, kind of issue, combined with a non-global mentality.

--
Is this the year that Oregon ceases to exist?

On 08/11/2021 02:21, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:16:13 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

....

[OT comments below]

>> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
>> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of
>> the world begs to differ.
>
> If you meant to insult James here, I think you failed. IIRC, he's in
> the U.K. So, he's probably British.

Yes, I am British. English, in fact.

> On the other hand, I'm in the
> U.S., descended from British ancestors (AFAIK), and, yes, the U.S.
> population and it's news media isn't generally globally oriented. We
> often don't even know what is going on in Mexico or Canada. That is
> often, unfortunately, portrayed as self-centered or narcissistic. In
> reality, it's more of a too much to do, too much to enjoy, too little
> time for it all, kind of issue, combined with a non-global mentality.
>

You may be surprised to find how similar it is in the UK. The TV media
here have narrow viewpoints, often focussing on UK and US events (or
causes celebres that they have, themselves, created) and telling us
little about what's happening in mainland Europe, Asia or Africa etc.
It's exasperating and leaves viewers ignorant of important issues in the
wider world.

--
James Harris

On 2021-11-08 09:54, James Harris wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 02:21, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> On the other hand, I'm in the
>> U.S., descended from British ancestors (AFAIK), and, yes, the U.S.
>> population and it's news media isn't generally globally oriented.  We
>> often don't even know what is going on in Mexico or Canada.  That is
>> often, unfortunately, portrayed as self-centered or narcissistic.  In
>> reality, it's more of a too much to do, too much to enjoy, too little
>> time for it all, kind of issue, combined with a non-global mentality.
>
> You may be surprised to find how similar it is in the UK. The TV media
> here have narrow viewpoints, often focussing on UK and US events (or
> causes celebres that they have, themselves, created) and telling us
> little about what's happening in mainland Europe, Asia or Africa etc.

And why do you think that mainland Europe is any different in that respect?

> It's exasperating and leaves viewers ignorant of important issues in the
> wider world.

Do not tell anybody, it is a state secret, there is no important issues
in the wider world!

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

On 08/11/2021 09:54, James Harris wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 02:21, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:16:13 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> [OT comments below]
>
>>> I know that in the USA it is common to think that America is the only
>>> country, or at least the only one worth considering, but the rest of
>>> the world begs to differ.
>>
>> If you meant to insult James here, I think you failed.  IIRC, he's in
>> the U.K.  So, he's probably British.
>
> Yes, I am British. English, in fact.

I did not intend to insult anyone - I intended to provoke US-centered
thinkers to take a wider view through a tongue-in-cheek comment. But
while I am used to Americans (US Americans, to be precise) being unaware
of other countries or that their language is just one variation of
English, and I am used to British people (especially English)
considering the UK to be naturally superior to the rest of the world, it
is not often one comes across a Brit who is convinced the American
version of English should be considered the "main" language.

>
>> On the other hand, I'm in the
>> U.S., descended from British ancestors (AFAIK), and, yes, the U.S.
>> population and it's news media isn't generally globally oriented.  We
>> often don't even know what is going on in Mexico or Canada.  That is
>> often, unfortunately, portrayed as self-centered or narcissistic.  In
>> reality, it's more of a too much to do, too much to enjoy, too little
>> time for it all, kind of issue, combined with a non-global mentality.
>>
>
> You may be surprised to find how similar it is in the UK. The TV media
> here have narrow viewpoints, often focussing on UK and US events (or
> causes celebres that they have, themselves, created) and telling us
> little about what's happening in mainland Europe, Asia or Africa etc.
> It's exasperating and leaves viewers ignorant of important issues in the
> wider world.
>
>

I live in Norway, and see things from a little bit more outside. There
is a clear tendency that the bigger a country is, the less it bothers
about what is happening in smaller countries. However, the USA is an
outlier here amongst Western democracies (as it is in many aspects) -
not only do most Americans care little about what happens outside their
borders, but a substantial number /know/ very little about the world
outside of the USA. Many have trouble even naming or placing other
countries on a world map. I think a lot of it is the public school
system, where it seems to be more about surviving to adulthood than
getting an education. (Of course this does not apply to everyone in the
USA.) The UK is not as bad - though it is trying to follow the USA
here. At least in the UK there is always the BBC for news - it's not
perfect, but it is pretty good.

Social media is, unfortunately, just making things worse - many people
are getting more and more disconnected from reality as their main source
of information has topics based on what they and their "friends" have
looked at before, with a bias towards controversial topics since those
incite more time spent on the platform.