Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26168

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

From	"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?
Date	2011-02-04 21:46 -0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<iiio8g$lcp$1@news.eternal-september.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <iig6j2$dul$2@news.albasani.net><iig84e$uqu$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iigcva$90q$1@news.eternal-september.org><iihufd$ulm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iii493$nn8$1@news.eternal-september.org><iii64u$nji$1@news.eternal-september.org><4d4ca055$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk><iii7jc$ssv$1@news.eternal-september.org> <4d4cc253$1@news.x-privat.org><4d4cc43d$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4cc888$1@news.x-privat.org>

Show all headers | View raw


"Ken Wesson" <kwesson@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4d4cc888$1@news.x-privat.org...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:30:09 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 04-02-2011 22:21, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:02:37 -0800, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arne Vajhøj"<arne@vajhoej.dk>  wrote in message
>>>> news:4d4ca055$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>>> Which is a bit surprising since high code points were introduced when
>>>>> .NET came around.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they probably had a compatibility issue with p/Invoke and Win32
>>>>> API, COM interop, C++ mixed mode etc. that all had to work with
>>>>> existing Win32 model of 16 bit wchars.
>>>>
>>>> Or, relentless micro-optimizers that they are, Microsoft wasn't
>>>> willing to bite off the size/performance issues.
>>>
>>> Relentless micro-optimizers of what, their cashflow?
>>
>> Micro optimization in the meaning it has among programmers.
>
> Microsoft doesn't know beans about optimizing program code, as anyone
> who's waited five mintues for Windows to start up and become fully
> responsive can attest. :)

Optimization and micro-optimization are not synonyms.
>

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 22:30 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 19:16 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 18:26 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 11:15 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:15 +0100
      Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 20:53 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 07:15 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:25 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:48 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 21:46 -0800

csiph-web