[sword-devel] Re: sword-devel Digest, Vol 19, Issue 30

[Mina Magdy]

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 <umphress at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/1/05, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> 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 at 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