Op 15-10-2015 om 14:52 schreef Konstantin Ritt: > > > For everything but US-ASCII / Latin-1, UTF-8 isn't faster than UTF-16 > (feel free to compare their complexity against UTF-32). > And why "pure Chinese signs" again? Did you ever look into the > Unicode's Scripts.txt [1], for example? It clearly shows UTF-16 covers > [almost] all spoken languages, without any performance hits (in > compare to UTF-8), and all we have to pay is an extra byte per every > Base Latin character (in compare to UTF-8, again). > > [1] http://www.unicode.org/Public/8.0.0/ucd/Scripts.txt > "All we have to pay"? Isn't that quite a significant cost, if your every other byte in your data is going to be null? Doesn't that impact cache lines? Doesn't that impact how many characters you can stuff into a string with SSO (as planned for Qt6?) and thus when you need to start allocating? I would certainly think that there is an impact on things like XML parsing speed. But true enough, that is without measuring that.
I also think it should be the default for saving QStrings to files. Many years ago, I was writing with an application on a very constrained mobile device dealing with maps. Converting the map format to use UTF8 instead of UTF16 for its contained strings (which were many) caused a very significant reduction of file size (impacting the map area the users could take with them on the road) and loading speed (impacting UX very positively). André _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
