Johann Zuschlag <zuschlag2@online.de> writes:
> Hmm..., so Windows XP uses UCS-2 or do be more correct (like Bart
> mentioned) UTF-16 (which is nearly the same, except for the
> surrogates).
It's nearly the same... but that makes a huge difference.
The reason why you use fixed-character length encoding in memory is
speed. This saves you a lot of time when computing string lengths,
look for some characters (isalnum(),...), collating etc.
If don't care about all this speed then you better stay in a
variable-length encoding like UTF-8 which saves you A LOT of space,
especially with small occidental alphabets.
I think that by moving from UCS-2 to UTF-16 you lose on BOTH sides
[insert some missing benchmarks here]
And you can be sure that it brings a lot of bugs: one bug every
time some string code has been "forgotten" and not updated, still
assuming UCS-2.
Anyway those bugs are only for far-away and unknown countries out of
the BMP so who cares? :-/
So it really looks like a poor compatibility hack to me (java does it
too).
