Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 03:58:24 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: GSM and Unicode"

    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,
    > > 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


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 04:48:54 EST