From: Jungshik Shin (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 03:58:24 EST
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> > Such applications are not "very old", they are still being written.
> > For example (see http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Charset-Unicode.html),
> > MySQL 4.1 adds UCS-2 and UTF-8 support to previous versions but for
> > single two-byte codes in UCS-2 and up to three bytes per UTF-8
> > character only :-( - and this is still in alpha!
> At the risk of upsetting the open-source faithful, that is just plain
> lazy. Anyone who can master the wizardly details of building a powerful
Don't worry about me (at least) :-). I've never been a fan of MySQL
and don't understand why MySQL is so much more popluar than a lot
superior (in my opinion) alternatives like PostgreSQL and Firebird.
Among other things(referential integrity, triggering, stored procedure,
transaction, etc), MySQL's I18N support was non-existent (just a year
ago) and is still medicore at best. MySQL's claim to speed comes at
the cost of features. MySQL advocates would counter that most users of
MySQL don't need most of SQL 92/99 (perhaps true), but then, do they
need that much speed, either unless only thing they can afford is 7 -
10 year old 486/Pentium. I have to add that perf. difference between
MySQL and PostgreSQL is smaller than 5 years ago.
BTW, ironically, IIRC, MySQL is used somewhere at unicode.org.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 04:48:54 EST