Git hates UTF-16
-
@Rhywden said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Carnage said in Git hates UTF-16:
@PleegWat said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Zenith said in Git hates UTF-16:
jump head first into Android.
Be careful with that. The pool is leaky and I don't know how much water is still in it.
And like all public pools, there is a significant amount och piss in it.
Strictly speaking, that's true for all bodies of water.
Most bodies of water, you can't smell it at least.
-
@pie_flavor said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Carnage said in Git hates UTF-16:
och
Phone autocorrect decided I did not really want to use of in an English sentence, so it replaced it with a Swedish word instead.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
- Wonky Unicode support. Can cause silent data loss.
- 32kB limit per file. I know it might very well be enough for you, but in 2019 it's pitiful. And exceeding the limit is silent error.
- Simultaneous access can cause deadlock, even between different processes.
- There is no way to distinguish between a read that fills up entire buffer and a read that's too big for a buffer and got truncated.
- The documentation describes some rather complicated registry shenanigans that happen on every read and write that I didn't fully understood. But the bottom line is, what the application sees might not always be what actually is in the file.
I'm sure there are more, but this should be enough. Yes, you can always do a bunch of hacks to work around each of these problems, like not allowing Unicode in your app, always checking for 32kB limit before write, restricting programs so only one instance of one program can read any given file, treat full buffers as read errors unconditionally, and just put a big fat warning not to edit those files by hand - but at this point, is it still worth it?
Thanks. I think you can tell if the read buffer is too small though. Alot of these functions ask you to pass a void pointer or a zero in to get a desired buffer length back out and then that's what you allocate on the second call. My expectation is that having to provide both the buffer and its length makes it safe enough to do something arbitrary that will fit most options. For my use cases, I never ran into most of these limitations, just the Unicode one. 32KB goes alot farther without the tag soup :)
I'll put it on my list though. It'll be a nice change of pace from what I've been doing.
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
And there's no middle ground at all. None whatsoever. It's either doing things your entire life the exact same way you've done them when you were 20, or rewriting everything from scratch every week and having no time for actual features. Nothing inbetween.
How many needful doers have you worked with? Projects are always on an endless rewrite cycle with them, the only difference being whether it's every year or every three. And they're everywhere. Every development job posting out here reads like "the H1Bs made a mess and we need somebody to endlessly babysit/patch it so they can make another mess of something else that will also need endless babysitting/patching."
I've quite possibly had my last development job, real or otherwise. So really it's just personal projects that suffer from how I do this stuff.
-
@Zenith said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
- Wonky Unicode support. Can cause silent data loss.
- 32kB limit per file. I know it might very well be enough for you, but in 2019 it's pitiful. And exceeding the limit is silent error.
- Simultaneous access can cause deadlock, even between different processes.
- There is no way to distinguish between a read that fills up entire buffer and a read that's too big for a buffer and got truncated.
- The documentation describes some rather complicated registry shenanigans that happen on every read and write that I didn't fully understood. But the bottom line is, what the application sees might not always be what actually is in the file.
I'm sure there are more, but this should be enough. Yes, you can always do a bunch of hacks to work around each of these problems, like not allowing Unicode in your app, always checking for 32kB limit before write, restricting programs so only one instance of one program can read any given file, treat full buffers as read errors unconditionally, and just put a big fat warning not to edit those files by hand - but at this point, is it still worth it?
Thanks. I think you can tell if the read buffer is too small though. Alot of these functions ask you to pass a void pointer or a zero in to get a desired buffer length back out and then that's what you allocate on the second call.
Tell this alot that his documentation doesn't mention that, so it most likely doesn't work in this case. Or at least you shouldn't rely on it.
-
@Carnage said in Git hates UTF-16:
Phone autocorrect decided I did not really want to use of in an English sentence, so it replaced it with a
SwedishScottish word instead.FTFY
-
@dkf you're both wrong. It's Polish!
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
Hopefully that is enough examples for you to shut up?
If your goal is for him to shut up, why did you revive a topic that no one posted in in 7 days?
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla Any non-ANSI string (e.g. UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32) is not a sequence of bytes when you need to determine character count.
Does it magically transform into something else while you count? And then back into a
pumpkinsequence of bytes when you're done?Hopefully that is enough examples for you to shut up?
You mean am I satisfied that you've proved
my@dkf's point? Yes.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla Any non-ANSI string (e.g. UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32) is not a sequence of bytes when you need to determine character count.
Does it magically transform into something else while you count? And then back into a
pumpkinsequence of bytes when you're done?Conceptually, yes.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla Any non-ANSI string (e.g. UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32) is not a sequence of bytes when you need to determine character count.
Does it magically transform into something else while you count? And then back into a
pumpkinsequence of bytes when you're done?Conceptually, yes.
Thank you. The validation feels good here on a Monday morning.
-
@boomzilla why are you forming your points as questions when you agree with positive answer? Usually people do this if they agree with negative answer, as a rhetorical device. "So the sky is green? And Windows Update works without a hitch?"
Edit: and what happened last week that now you're arguing the opposite of what you've argued earlier?
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla why are you forming your points as questions when you agree with positive answer? Usually people do this if they agree with negative answer, as a rhetorical device. "So the sky is green? And Windows Update works without a hitch?"
Did you agree with him that during the counting process the sequence of bytes was no longer there?
Edit: and what happened last week that now you're arguing the opposite of what you've argued earlier?
Something about your comprehension changed because my position hasn't changed at all. You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice. But for some reason you think that by using higher level abstractions the bytes are no longer bytes...or something...I really have no idea what you think is happening because it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla why are you forming your points as questions when you agree with positive answer? Usually people do this if they agree with negative answer, as a rhetorical device. "So the sky is green? And Windows Update works without a hitch?"
Did you agree with him that during the counting process the sequence of bytes was no longer there?
Yes. And you did too. Or maybe you didn't, and meant something entirely different by your post than what you've written in your post. It would really be much easier to follow your point if you didn't lie.
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with. I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla why are you forming your points as questions when you agree with positive answer? Usually people do this if they agree with negative answer, as a rhetorical device. "So the sky is green? And Windows Update works without a hitch?"
Did you agree with him that during the counting process the sequence of bytes was no longer there?
Yes. And you did too. Or maybe you didn't, and meant something entirely different by your post than what you've written in your post. It would really be much easier to follow your point if you didn't lie.
I really have no idea what you think is different about my position.
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about. Here's a better analogy:
The king is a person.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person. And I'm saying that he's still a person. This isn't just a "dictionary" thing. It's just sloppy thinking.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Here's a better analogy:
The king is a person.
A person has arms and legs (or at least stumps). A king has arms and legs (or at least stumps). A person has to eat to stay alive. A king has to eat to stay alive. A person can get drunk with vodka. A king can get drunk with vodka. Every statement you might possibly make about a person that will be universally true for all persons in the entire world, is just as true about all kings. A king is a subclass of a person. A king is a person.
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
Here's a better analogy:
The king is a person.
A person has arms and legs (or at least stumps). A king has arms and legs (or at least stumps). A person has to eat to stay alive. A king has to eat to stay alive. A person can get drunk with vodka. A king can get drunk with vodka. Every statement you might possibly make about a person that will be universally true for all persons in the entire world, is just as true about all kings. A king is a subclass of a person. A king is a person.
Yes! Now you're getting it!
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
Alright...now, when the character has some other value, how is that expressed? Is it expressed with more than one byte?
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
Except you literally just did when you said a character can have a value other than 0..255, implying that if it doesn't it's not bytes any more. Because apparently two bytes isn't one byte. Or something. I admit that I don't get where you were going there because it literally makes no sense.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
Alright...now, when the character has some other value, how is that expressed? Is it expressed with more than one byte?
Yes, I worded it a bit awkwardly, I agree. I didn't mean numerical limits, I meant invalid values. I should've used a slightly different example. Like, a sequence of bytes can be appended with any arbitrary sequence of bytes and still stay a valid sequence of bytes. When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
Except you literally just did when you said a character can have a value other than 0..255, implying that if it doesn't it's not bytes any more. Because apparently two bytes isn't one byte. Or something. I admit that I don't get where you were going there because it literally makes no sense.That mistake really blew your mind.
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
Hopefully that is enough examples for you to shut up?
Decent troll attempt, 6½ / 10.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
That depends on the encoding. With the various ISO 8859 encodings, they do remain valid (as each byte maps to one character and vice versa). With some others, they don't. UTF-16 has prohibitions on what you can do with the surrogate pair range. UTF-8 has quite a lot of prohibited sequences.
ISO 8859-1 is a particularly useful encoding in practice, because it maps each byte to the Unicode character with the same numerical index. It means that you can squirrel arbitrary binary data through Unicode-aware processing systems without losing track of WTF you started out with…
-
@dkf said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
That depends on the encoding.
Exactly.
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
Two bytes are a word.
Only on 16-bit machines (and in Windows, because hysterical raisins).
-
@dkf said in Git hates UTF-16:
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
Two bytes are a word.
Only on 16-bit machines (and in Windows, because hysterical raisins).
It really doesn't help when you mix two separate, unrelated definitions of the same word in a single sentence.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
It's been there plain as day all along. You're the one who can't explain what you keep insisting is the case.Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
Alright...now, when the character has some other value, how is that expressed? Is it expressed with more than one byte?
Yes, I worded it a bit awkwardly, I agree. I didn't mean numerical limits, I meant invalid values. I should've used a slightly different example. Like, a sequence of bytes can be appended with any arbitrary sequence of bytes and still stay a valid sequence of bytes. When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
Huh? Who cares? You're talking about something different. No one said that every sequence of bytes was a sequence of characters.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
Except you literally just did when you said a character can have a value other than 0..255, implying that if it doesn't it's not bytes any more. Because apparently two bytes isn't one byte. Or something. I admit that I don't get where you were going there because it literally makes no sense.That mistake really blew your mind.
Well, sure, taking nonsense seriously has that effect.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
Your logical fallacy is begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
It's been there plain as day all along.Then quote this "obvious" you're talking about, if it really is there. Quote, not write.
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
Alright...now, when the character has some other value, how is that expressed? Is it expressed with more than one byte?
Yes, I worded it a bit awkwardly, I agree. I didn't mean numerical limits, I meant invalid values. I should've used a slightly different example. Like, a sequence of bytes can be appended with any arbitrary sequence of bytes and still stay a valid sequence of bytes. When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
Huh? Who cares?
People who believe words have meaning. If A is B, then A is B, always, in every situation, no exceptions. If there's an exception, then A is not B.
There are cases where sequence of characters doesn't behave like sequence of bytes. So sequence of characters is not a sequence of bytes.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
Except you literally just did when you said a character can have a value other than 0..255, implying that if it doesn't it's not bytes any more. Because apparently two bytes isn't one byte. Or something. I admit that I don't get where you were going there because it literally makes no sense.That mistake really blew your mind.
Well, sure, taking nonsense seriously has that effect.
You're right. I should stop taking your nonsense seriously.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
It's been there plain as day all along.Then quote this "obvious" you're talking about, if it really is there. Quote, not write.
Fuck you, this is retarded. I've quoted it a zillion times: "Sequence of characters is also a sequence of bytes...is one of those things that is both true and utterly unhelpfully misleading."
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
Alright...now, when the character has some other value, how is that expressed? Is it expressed with more than one byte?
Yes, I worded it a bit awkwardly, I agree. I didn't mean numerical limits, I meant invalid values. I should've used a slightly different example. Like, a sequence of bytes can be appended with any arbitrary sequence of bytes and still stay a valid sequence of bytes. When you append a sequence of characters with an arbitrary sequence of bytes, it's not guaranteed it'll stay a valid sequence of characters.
Huh? Who cares?
People who believe words have meaning. If A is B, then A is B, always, in every situation, no exceptions. If there's an exception, then A is not B.
Yes.
There are cases where sequence of characters doesn't behave like sequence of bytes. So sequence of characters is not a sequence of bytes.
TDEMSYR. No, seriously, this is stupid. Your brain must be hurting from the dissonance. Hydrogen peroxide is hydrogen and oxygen. So is water. But those two things behave differently so they can't actually be made of the same things according to your "logic."
And again, no one ever said that every sequence of bytes is a sequence of characters, which is what your statement assumes.
But you think that when he's doing king stuff he's no longer a person.
I never said anything like that.
Except you literally just did when you said a character can have a value other than 0..255, implying that if it doesn't it's not bytes any more. Because apparently two bytes isn't one byte. Or something. I admit that I don't get where you were going there because it literally makes no sense.That mistake really blew your mind.
Well, sure, taking nonsense seriously has that effect.
You're right. I should stop taking your nonsense seriously.
Yes, and stay away from math, too. You clearly aren't suited for it.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
It's been there plain as day all along.Then quote this "obvious" you're talking about, if it really is there. Quote, not write.
Fuck you, this is retarded. I've quoted it a zillion times: "Sequence of characters is also a sequence of bytes...is one of those things that is both true and utterly unhelpfully misleading."
Oh, that. Well, of course it obvious to you. It's right there in your basic assumptions. Dogmas, one might say. But I don't share your dogmas. I believe your dogmas are wrong.
Hydrogen peroxide is hydrogen and oxygen. So is water. But those two things behave differently so they can't actually be made of the same things according to your "logic."
I never said anything like that. I said they aren't the same thing, not that they aren't made of the same thing. It all comes back to your broken assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of". You took this broken assumption, applied in reverse to my statement, and yell that your broken reasoning process led to stupid results.
And again, no one ever said that every sequence of bytes is a sequence of characters
Including me.
which is what your statement assumes.
Wrong.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption. The problem is that you're reifying ontology and ignoring the obvious. Unless you can explain where the sequence of bytes goes when you look at the sequence of characters.
We're all in agreement here, we're just bike shedding about dictionary.
I can kind of see why you believe this but it looks like you have a fundamental problem with reality and want to impose an interpretation of reality over, like, actual reality.
As was explained in the other thread by Captain, "is" is purely ontological statement. There's no reality. "Is made of" is reality. "Is implemented with" is reality. "Is" is pure ontology, pure dictionary bikeshedding.
Except that you simultaneously seem to agree and disagree with the obvious here, which is what I've been talking about.
I don't know which obviouses you have in mind here (mostly because you haven't said it), so I can't address this statement.
Of course not. Why would today be different?
It would certainly be different if you said what you have to say for once, and not leave it to our imaginations what you're getting at. But I guess some people never change.
It's been there plain as day all along.Then quote this "obvious" you're talking about, if it really is there. Quote, not write.
Fuck you, this is retarded. I've quoted it a zillion times: "Sequence of characters is also a sequence of bytes...is one of those things that is both true and utterly unhelpfully misleading."
Oh, that. Well, of course it obvious to you. It's right there in your basic assumptions. Dogmas, one might say. But I don't share your dogmas. I believe your dogmas are wrong.
It's absolutely your right to believe dumb stuff.
Hydrogen peroxide is hydrogen and oxygen. So is water. But those two things behave differently so they can't actually be made of the same things according to your "logic."
I never said anything like that. I said they aren't the same thing, not that they aren't made of the same thing.
But you also say that they aren't made of those things. You're confusing a particular arrangement of them with denying that they're there.
It all comes back to your broken assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of". You took this broken assumption, applied in reverse to my statement, and yell that your broken reasoning process led to stupid results.
Yes and in this case the stupid result is you believing that there are no bytes around when there's a sequence of characters.
And again, no one ever said that every sequence of bytes is a sequence of characters
Including me.
which is what your statement assumes.
Wrong.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them. Enjoy your dogmas. Just please stay away from serious discussions.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so. So yes, if you are so confused that you believe that I'm making an unwarranted assumption you should be able to point out how it's wrong, not hand wave it away with irrelevant arguments like you've been doing.
Enjoy your dogmas. Just please stay away from serious discussions.
LOL. I can appreciate the humor in this, at least.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so.
C++'s
char16_t*.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so.
C++'s
char16_t*.Now I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or not. You are a case study of Poe or Noe in this entire thread.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so.
C++'s
char16_t*.Now I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or not.
At least I don't have to wonder if you finally got rid of this "being is that same as being made of" brain worm. (You didn't. Try harder.)
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so.
C++'s
char16_t*.Now I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or not.
At least I don't have to wonder if you finally got rid of this "being is that same as being made of" brain worm. (You didn't. Try harder.)
The worm is entirely yours for loading up extra stuff into the statement that isn't there, not to mention your math illiterate view that A implies B means that B implies A. And special configurations or other constraints dazzle your brain so that you can't notice the obvious about something.
Seriously: Where did the bytes for the
char16_tgo? The answer is that they're always there, even if there are good reasons to use them and think about them in different ways. But noticing something like this is actually super useful and important, because it clues you into the fact that you might get some people who are lucky or clever enough to get by treating them the same...until they can't and then they get burned.But yeah, you've imagined this whole class of errors out of existence, right? No one has ever miscounted the number of characters in a UFT-8 encoded string by counting the number of bytes, according to you...because it's not bytes! Hah! Man, I swear I must have gotten trolled here by you, because I can't believe someone is really that dumb to not realize that there are still bytes there.
But sure, I guess the Magic Byte Man takes them away when you are looking. You should incorporate him into your worldview. It will close up some holes that are currently peeking out.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
You guys keep giving examples as to the wisdom of @dkf's comment about sequences of characters being bytes but that fact being utterly useless in practice.
@dkf's comment is fine. It's your comment that "made of bytes means is bytes" that we have a problem with.
Wat?
And you say I have reading comprehension problem.
Yeah. You don't seem to see the contradiction there.
And you're once again seeing things that aren't there.
I don't know the right words to express what is wrong with your statement that one thing with one set of semantic rules is another thing with another, entirely different set of semantic rules, but I am absolutely sure it's wrong.
Yeah, sure, and there are no electrons or protons in your body, either.
There are. But it's wrong to say I'm protons.
Good, good, now you've latched onto where the analogy falls short to maintain cognitive dissonance.
If your analogy fails as soon as I say "just because X is made of Y doesn't mean X is Y" about anything, maybe you should rethink your claim that "whenever X is made of Y, it means X is Y".
No, you need to stop believing that things stop being what they are when you think about them differently.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Things are what they are. Regardless of what I or you think at the moment. Regardless of what we thought in the past, and what we'll think in the future. But I'm still not protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm made of them, but I am not them. And it has nothing to do with thinking - it's all about being. I'm not protons, electrons and neutrons.
So they're there but they aren't? Sure.
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
TDEMSYR. No, really, I have no idea how I could be begging the question here.
See? Your assumption that "being" means the same as "being made of" is so deeply burned in your brain that you don't even notice it. Of course that if you assume right from the start that "being" means the same as "being made of", you're going to conclude that "being" means the same as "being made of". But the problem is, it's not a correct assumption.
It is absolutely a correct assumption.
Then we have nothing to talk about. There's no point trying to reason if you if you already assumed all conclusions as absolutely correct and you won't even think of reconsidering them.
Except that I literally did the opposite. I asked multiple times for someone to show me a sequence of characters that wasn't a sequence of bytes and no one has been able to do so.
C++'s
char16_t*.Now I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or not.
At least I don't have to wonder if you finally got rid of this "being is that same as being made of" brain worm. (You didn't. Try harder.)
The worm is entirely yours for loading up extra stuff into the statement that isn't there, not to mention your math illiterate view that A implies B means that B implies A.
Here you go again, talking about stuff I never said.
Seriously: Where did the bytes for the
char16_tgo?Into the memory. Because
char16_tis implemented with bytes. That doesn't meanchar16_tis bytes.But yeah, you've imagined this whole class of errors out of existence, right?
Another thing you think I said even though I didn't. Your shoulder aliens are unusually talkative today.
No one has ever miscounted the number of characters in a UFT-8 encoded string by counting the number of bytes, according to you...because it's not bytes!
TDEMSYR. How is that relevant to anything? Yes, you can fuck up implementation of strings by mishandling the bytes that you implemented the strings with, and this happens all the time in practice, and has all kinds of horrible consequences. And yes, it's a direct result of strings being stored as bytes in memory. But none of this is related to the question of whether strings are bytes. It shows that they're implemented as bytes - and in a sense, made of bytes. But not that they are bytes.
-
Always a pleasure to see where debates wander off to if you just let them running for a while on this site.
Interesting to find out that @boomzilla thinks "is made of" is the same as "is", and interesting to find out that @Gąska thinks a character is made of bytes...
Considering the starting point of this discussion, I can only conclude that all of you agree that this here is a pipe.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Git hates UTF-16:
interesting to find out that @Gąska thinks a character is made of bytes...
In a sense.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
The worm is entirely yours for loading up extra stuff into the statement that isn't there, not to mention your math illiterate view that A implies B means that B implies A.
Here you go again, talking about stuff I never said.
What? You totally brought up the brain worm thing. And yes, your talk of byte sequences that aren't character sequences are definitely that fallacy, otherwise, why you even bring it up?
Seriously: Where did the bytes for the
char16_tgo?Into the memory. Because
char16_tis implemented with bytes. That doesn't meanchar16_tis bytes.Once again, you say that it is bytes and yet it isn't, confusing yourself with different abstractions and ignoring that the other things are true at the same time.
But yeah, you've imagined this whole class of errors out of existence, right?
Another thing you think I said even though I didn't. Your shoulder aliens are unusually talkative today.
No, it's absolutely what you're saying. It's funny that you can see the absurdity when I point it out but you're still blinded to it when you say it.
No one has ever miscounted the number of characters in a UFT-8 encoded string by counting the number of bytes, according to you...because it's not bytes!
TDEMSYR. How is that relevant to anything? Yes, you can fuck up implementation of strings by mishandling the bytes that you implemented the strings with, and this happens all the time in practice, and has all kinds of horrible consequences. And yes, it's a direct result of strings being stored as bytes in memory. But none of this is related to the question of whether strings are bytes. It shows that they're implemented as bytes - and in a sense, made of bytes. But not that they are bytes.
You are the timecube guy of strings. That's basically what I'm left with.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Git hates UTF-16:
Always a pleasure to see where debates wander off to if you just let them running for a while on this site.
Interesting to find out that @boomzilla thinks "is made of" is the same as "is", and interesting to find out that @Gąska thinks a character is made of bytes...
I mean...it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right? No, but seriously, do you have an actual argument that a sequence of characters is not a sequence of bytes?
Considering the starting point of this discussion, I can only conclude that all of you agree that this here is a pipe.
If that's your conclusion then I don't think you've paid attention to my posts It's really not that complicated.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
Seriously: Where did the bytes for the
char16_tgo?Into the memory. Because
char16_tis implemented with bytes. That doesn't meanchar16_tis bytes.Once again, you say that it is bytes and yet it isn't, confusing yourself with different abstractions and ignoring that the other things are true at the same time.
Do the words "implemented with" not render on your machine, or what? Here, let me try this way:
These two statements talk about two completely different things. They aren't contradicting each other.
No one has ever miscounted the number of characters in a UFT-8 encoded string by counting the number of bytes, according to you...because it's not bytes!
TDEMSYR. How is that relevant to anything? Yes, you can fuck up implementation of strings by mishandling the bytes that you implemented the strings with, and this happens all the time in practice, and has all kinds of horrible consequences. And yes, it's a direct result of strings being stored as bytes in memory. But none of this is related to the question of whether strings are bytes. It shows that they're implemented as bytes - and in a sense, made of bytes. But not that they are bytes.
You are the timecube guy of strings. That's basically what I'm left with.
Sorry, I'm too young to get the reference.
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
Seriously: Where did the bytes for the
char16_tgo?Into the memory. Because
char16_tis implemented with bytes. That doesn't meanchar16_tis bytes.Once again, you say that it is bytes and yet it isn't, confusing yourself with different abstractions and ignoring that the other things are true at the same time.
Do the words "implemented with" not render on your machine, or what? Here, let me try this way:
No, those words are fine.
These two statements talk about two completely different things. They aren't contradicting each other.
So, I get what you're saying there. The second statement is imposing the additional abstraction of
char16_ton top of the bytes. However, underneath, it's still all bytes. So again, the point wasn't that there aren't useful abstractions that we can use. It was really the opposite, and a warning that ignoring those abstractions would lead to problems. But that's not the same thing as the sort of denial you have where everything apparently must only be one thing, and we cannot even consider different ways of comprehending the same construct.
-
@boomzilla and my point is that you would be entirely correct, if only you said "is implemented with" instead of "is". Because "is" doesn't work like that. It's only about definitions of words. Except for this single word, I agree with everything you say.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
an actual argument that a sequence of characters is not a sequence of bytes
You quoted my argument just below this statement. The bytes represent characters, just as that picture of the pipe represents a pipe. And just as the picture isn't a pipe (nor vice-versa), so the bytes aren't a sequence of characters (nor vice-versa).
Thus, since you continue to insist that a sequence of characters is a sequence of bytes, I can only conclude that for you, a picture of a pipe is a pipe. I'm really not sure what I should have paid attention to in order to avoid coming to that conclusion.
-
-
@Gąska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla and my point is that you would be entirely correct, if only you said "is implemented with" instead of "is". Because "is" doesn't work like that. It's only about definitions of words. Except for this single word, I agree with everything you say.
Then you're simply banging your head against the English language.
-
@boomzilla no u
-
@ixvedeusi said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
an actual argument that a sequence of characters is not a sequence of bytes
You quoted my argument just below this statement. The bytes represent characters, just as that picture of the pipe represents a pipe. And just as the picture isn't a pipe (nor vice-versa), so the bytes aren't a sequence of characters (nor vice-versa).
If you have a sequence of characters, you also have a sequence of bytes. You may decide to use them only as a sequence of characters, but the bytes are still there. And if you look at the sequence of bytes in the proper way, you can see the sequence of characters. Both are true at the same time. This silly argument between "made of" and "is" doesn't make sense because they aren't mutually exclusive.
Thus, since you continue to insist that a sequence of characters is a sequence of bytes, I can only conclude that for you, a picture of a pipe is a pipe. I'm really not sure what I should have paid attention to in order to avoid coming to that conclusion.
I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. If you were following what I said, I'd be saying that the picture is...paint and canvas (assuming we're talking about an oil painting like the original). Not a pipe. But this paragraph of yours makes no actual sense and doesn't relate to my argument at all.
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla And you either ignore proof, pick irrelevant parts to deconstruct and "prove" wrong, or outright lie about people saying what they haven't said.
Bullshit. You guys are just being too clever to see what's right in front of you.
- Person is made of DNA sequences
- Character is made of BYTE sequences
If you look at a _____________ sequence can you know what it represents without further abstraction?
Just answer the fucking question.
You probably won't know what it represents without the additional abstraction. I think we agree on this and I'm not sure why you asked me this.
Does the further abstraction change the strands of DNA? The BYTEs? Or is it the same as it ever was, no matter what you think about it?
