C++ can handle UTF-8 perfectly (and by default) when used with QT liberary It is cross platfrom C++ liberary here is screenshot to it under windows http://www.trolltech.com/images/screenshots/qt_vs_integration.png
--- Chris Umphress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/1/05, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Perhaps not everyone uses Java ;-) > > > > So true. However, Java's resource bundle can be > thought of as a design > > pattern. Its basic design is worthy of > consideration for any language. C++ > > does not support internationalization or > localization. It is an afterthought > > at best. However, this is part of the design of > Java from the start. I have > > implemented most of this design in Perl. > > > > The only advantage that I see in implementing > ResourceBundles for C++ is > > that the same files can be used by both Java and > C++. I bet that there is > > C++ code out there that can use Java > ResourceBundles. > > Understood, all of the string functions are designed > for ASCII, rather > than UTF-8. VS 6 and earlier were the same way. It > was a fairly > universal problem. .NET (and Windows 2k+) handle it > a lot better. > > >> C/C++ still requires significantly fewer > resources, and is more widely > >> used from what I have seen. Java is more > portable, and is a big hit in > >> colleges right now, but also requires more > resources and a slightly > >> faster processor to achieve the same speed. > > > > I beg to differ on the speed issue. At my > previous company, we took a C > > program that was taking 4 hours to run and > re-wrote it in Java. The end > > result was that it took 1 hour to run on the same > hardware. We then moved it > > from a Sun 4-way multi-processor with gobs of > memory to a single cpu desktop > > and the time dropped to 1/2 hour. > > > > I rewrote a C++ program into Perl and went from > 24+ hours worst case to 1 > > hour worst case and from 2 hours normal case to > 1/2 hour normal case. The > > memory footprint was 1/10 in Perl. Again, on the > same hardware. > > > > In both cases the difference was that the > programs were re-written to take > > advantage of the language's architecture and > strengths. And of course, the > > pitfalls of the earlier designs were avoided. > > > > IMHO, it is usually dumb to port from one > language to another. It is better > > to re-write to a better design. > > haha, that's what I was thinking. Somebody messed up > big when writing > those programs in C/C++. I love scripting in Perl, > but it always has > the overhead of having the interpreter. They do a > good job of > minimizing that, but it is still there. Java is > similar in the respect > of having a little bit of an overhead also. > > Programs written in Java have left a bad taste in my > mouth. Several > programs I have tried out require the better part of > 50 MB of memory > just to run, which was a bit excessive for the tasks > (IMO). On the > other hand, I know that programs written for my > phone were > well-optimized. I'm not saying that Java don't have > its purposes, but > I wouldn't use it for everything. > > Now I hope you understand my comment a little more > :-) > > -- > Chris Umphress <http://daga.dyndns.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at > above page > ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
