ASCII was amazingly efficient for conveying English text. Then we needed to encode multi languages and emojis, the resulting Unicode is just a mess.

▲

Perseids an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Human languages are a mess. Some mix left-to-right and right-to-left. Some have variable amount of diacritics. Some have non-well-defined character sets where just trying to map it to a manageable complexity still loses cultural heritage. When you are fondly remembering the good old times of ASCII, you just wish back to be able to ignore anyone not speaking English. (Which is in your right to do, if you so desire.)

▲

weinzierl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unicode was mostly OK when it wanted to encode multi languages. It started to get a mess when thought it needed to do more.

▲

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

frollogaston an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah the multi-unicode-char grapheme clusters are basically only for emojis once they started adding stuff like every ethnicity/gender combo of 4-person family. And that one historical Korean script.

▲

OkayPhysicist an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you think doesn't belong in Unicode? It turns out that expressing all the different ways humans have used text in history has some necessary complexity, but assigning each character and modifier a number seems like a perfectly reasonable approach.

	▲	weinzierl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"have used text in history" That's how Unicode started but nowadays Unicode expresses things that are only used because Unicode itself introduced them. And this while many important things in the "have used text in history" category have been unfinished or not tackled at all.