Design-by-Committee

[Alex Martelli]

"Michael Hudson" <mwh at python.net> wrote in message
news:m34rv16u4t.fsf at atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk...
    ...
> > > feature since 1.5.2 <wink>. I doubt I will ever need to use unicode,
so
> > > *to me*, it's a waste of resources.
    ...
> > ISO-8859-1 does not suffice?  Never need to drive a COM server or
> > implement one?  And I think XPCOM uses Unicode like COM (not sure).
>
> I'm not Thomas (obviously) but I can easily think of places you might
> use Python where you don't need unicode.  Scientific computing and
> sysadmin-style duct tape are just two that spring to mind almost

"sysadmin-style duct tape" on Windows systems is likely to
include some COM calls and thus benefit from good-quality,
centralized Unicode support.  If XPCOM takes roots (as I
hope it will), the same will happen cross-platform -- it's
a very good thing that we have Unicode in place already
against that eventuality.

Scientific computing may easily need to exchange data files
with other scientific-computing sites, and XML is emerging
as a likely format for such exchanges in certain fields.
Again, I'm quite happy we have the Unicode support needed
for standard XML support -- in ONE centralized place in
the language & core library.

That you may not need to use Unicode _right now_ is quite
likely.  But I'm surprised at predictions that one likely
"will never need to use Unicode", except perhaps if they
come from somebody very close to retirement age:-).


> immediately.  I don't *think* Thomas was suggesting that adding
> Unicode was a mistake.

In any case, I'm seconding AMK's opinion about it having
been an excellent strategic move:-).


Alex