in reply to Re^5: best sort
in thread best sort

I’ll have to think about how to get this major point across more effectively, because I don’t seem to have done so yet.

I'm not sure you'll be able to. And this isn't a slam against BrowserUk: for the most part, I'm in agreement with him. What you're successfully doing is showing where the naive (notice only one dot above the i here - I doubt anyone is confused as to what word that is) sort is insufficient. What you're unsuccessfully doing is showing where, for 95%+ (I suspect BrowserUk to be close to accurate with his 1-2% estimate where your details become important) of the time, I should still care. In my ~16 years of paid programming work, I have not yet encountered a time where a naive sort is insufficient for the work at hand. Now, granted, the first ~2 years was as a student, and those companies produced English-only output, and no names were involved, so 7-bit ascii was more than sufficient. For the last 14 years, I've worked in I18N/L10N-enabled software, though, and it still doesn't come up. Sorting doesn't come up often, but, thus far, the locale-sensitive order has been overkill. (Another team on the same product has integrated ICU for doing sorting where it matters, but that's something like 3 or 4 developers out of a team of 300, right in that 1-2% pocket that BrowserUk mentioned.)

Obviously, locale-sensitive ordering is a passion of yours. Where it seems to me that you're failing to come across (and I can't speak for whether this would get BrowserUk or anyone else to your side or not, I can only speak for myself) is that you're speaking from your perspective, not mine. That can be a Hard Thing™ to do. When is it, in the other 90%+, that I should care about locale-based collation? I mean, I'm glad there's a module that handles 90%+ of the cases where I do care about locale sensitive collation, but if I only need that 2% of the time, I'm not going to incur the overhead of figuring out what, if any, parameters need to be passed in to Unicode::Collate's constructor, or the runtime overhead, for the other 98% (I assume that if the naive sort is sufficient that U::C's constructor doesn't need any parameters, though I don't know that yet).

Hope that helps.

Update: I suppose it didn't help. Ah well, people who don't respond in good faith don't seem to want responses, so I'll just leave it at this.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: best sort
by tchrist (Pilgrim) on Aug 16, 2011 at 16:15 UTC
    the naive (notice only one dot above the i here - I doubt anyone is confused as to what word that is)
    Why certainly: it’s clearly the one that rimes with waive and glaive, of course. I happen to be familiar with the rools of English orθograφy, you know. I doubt anyone is confused as to what the words I wrote are, either; that’s hardly the point.