An assessment of the Unicode standard

r rt8396 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 21:39:43 CEST 2009


On Sep 1, 9:48 am, steve <st... at lonetwin.net> wrote:
(snip)
> I think you are confusing simplicity with uniformity.
>
> Uniformity is not always good. Sure standardizing on units of measure and
> airline codes is good, but expecting everyone to speak one language is akin to
> expecting everyone to wear one type of clothing or expecting everyone to drive
> just one type of automobile -- those kind of rules works well in a small sets
> where doing so fulfills a purpose (in the army, hospitals or taxi service, for
> instance).

Thanks for bringing good arguments to this thread. But let me argue
your talking points a bit.

You seem to think that a single language somehow infringes upon the
freedoms of individuals and you argue this by making parallels to
personal taste's like like cars, clothing, hairstyles, etc. I am an
American so i deeply believe in the right of individuals to freedom of
speech, freedom of expression. Freedom of everything AS long as your
freedoms don't cancel-out others freedoms.

I am also not advocating the outlawing or "frowning upon" of any non-
official language, quite the contrary. I AM saying that there must be
*ONE* language that is taught in schools throughout the world as the
very first language a child and *ONE* language that is used for
official business of governments and corporations throughout the
world. HOWEVER, individuals will still have the freedom to speak/write/
curse in any other language their heart desires. But with the great
language unity, all peoples will be able to communicate fluently
through the universal language while keeping their cultural identity.
Can you not see the beauty in this system?

Like i said, i believe in individual freedom, but you and i are also
children of the Human race. There are some responsibilities we must
keep to Human-kind as a whole. Universal communication is one of them.
Universal freedom is another. An neither of these responsibilities
will hold back individualism.

> To put it another way, it is better to create data structures to deal with
> variable length names rather than mandating that everybody has names < 30 chars.

You need to understand that language is for communication and
expression of ideas, and that is it. It is really not as glamorous as
you make it seem. It is simple a utility and nothing more...

> This might come as a bit of shock for you, but evolution awards those who are
> capable of adapting to complexity rather then those who expect things to be
> uniform. You, dear friend, and those who yearn for uniformity are the ones on
> the path to extinction.

No evolution awards those that benefit evolution. You make it seem as
evolution is some loving mother hen, quite the contrary! Evolution is
selfish, greedy, and sometimes evil. And it will endure all of us...

remember the old cliche "Nice guys finish last"?



More information about the Python-list mailing list