Dallas Clarke wrote:
This was never a debate between the merits of UTF-8 verses UTF-16 verses UTF-32, nor was it a debate about the merits of Linux/Solaris verses Windows,
Sorry, but a line like:
I wont bother repeating myself, it not my responsibility to cure your dogma, it just the end of me using GCC.
...comes across much too strongly as FLOSS-bashing. And when you follow it with something like:
I choose primarily Windows because I like writing software that interacts with people.
...the FUD detector just keeps ringing. (There's plenty of "software that interacts with people" on my Fedora system, thank you!)
But back on topic...
it was a discussion about the lack of standardized support for UTF-16 in gcc and with the move by Microsoft to deprecate UTF-8 in favour for UTF-16, it would make life increasingly difficult for all gcc developers to process UTF-16.
Ok, but clearly you've failed to convince us how this is a problem, or why we should bend over backwards to accommodate Microsoft's insistence on doing everything different.
I can competently code in both a Linux/Solaris and Windows environment,
Then what is the problem? Use a reasonable text-support library and be done with it.
And as much as you would like to believe that people like me are Windoze developers, it took me nearly 10 years to master the WinAPI plus MFC plus .NET architectures, but only about 2 months to master the Linux/Solaris APIs.
Then I guess we're doing something right. (I'd say, "for example, not moving the goalposts and making everyone start from scratch every 3 years" but that would fail to account for the general quality difference. When you combine the two, well, the above statement speaks for itself.)
With that in mind, I would submit for your consideration that there may be a reason that "because that's how Microsoft does it" tends to be met with hostility when suggesting a change.
I like technology, I like change, if Microsoft deprecates the .NET architecture (which I think they have already done with .Net v3.5 XML / XSLT architecture), I will just spend the time upgrading to the new design - who wants to be a stick in the mud?
People that like compatibility? ;-) True, gcc (well, really glibc and g++) are rather schizophrenic in this respect, but at least I don't run into nearly the level of "writing for Microsoft's latest fad language" :-). One project I'm currently the main developer for is littered with comments from the early 1990's and to my knowledge, very little of that code (on POSIX platforms) has needed significant change in about 15 years. Whereas the COM and ActiveX bits were developed later and have since been scrapped.
Personally, I don't like having to re-write entire code bases every five years because Microsoft has changed paradigms (again). My condolences that this seems to be the exact situation you are currently in.
-- Matthew ENOWIT: .sig file for this machine not set up yet
