Language change proposal

Eric Merritt cyberlync@REDACTED
Wed Nov 5 04:05:55 CET 2003

> This claim is quite untrue.
> First off, for the people who really REALLY need
> Unicode,
> they were going to be using 16 bits per character
> anyway.
> Their storage costs don't go up at all.  As I
> believe I've
> mentioned, IBM have supported "DBCS" (Double-Byte
> Character
> Sets) for decades.

 You are right, but the person I was responding to (I
forget who now) implied that ebcdic should simple be
replaced with unicode where erlang could be used. This
implies that it force shops that do not currently use
unicode to use it. 
> Typically what you do is store text in some
> compressed form on
> disc, unpack it if and only if you are going to do
> some processing,
> and then repack on the way out.

 I am not familiar enough with the admin side to
verify this either way.
> 	390s and 400s are not dead architectures
> 	by any ststretchf the imagination.
> Someone who knows that the current 64-bit "360"
> architecture is
> called z/Architecture clearly *knows* that; as does
> someone who
> has read the z/Architecture Principles of Operation
> closely enough
> to know about the Unicode support instructions.

 The 390s and 400s do have new names, I am not aware
of too many people who use these names in day to day
speech. In fact, IBM has just named a new laptop line
the iSeries as well, if you call for support and use
iSeries instead of 400 you will most likly be
forwarded to support for the laptop (we have had this
experience serveral times). So yes the terminology I
use is somewhat out of date, but there is a reason I
use it. As an aside, both the 390 and 400 are greater
then 64 bit architecures (though I forget which now, I
think 128 but I could be wrong).

In any case, we are very very off topic ;)

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list