Programming

17492 readers

36 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

220

Which protocol or open standard do you like or wish was more popular? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There are a couple I have in mind. Like many techies, I am a huge fan of RSS for content distribution and XMPP for federated communication.

The really niche one I like is S-expressions as a data format and configuration in place of json, yaml, toml, etc.

I am a big fan of Plaintext formats, although I wish markdown had a few more features like tables.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Which is what i ask for, better (or at all) support for unicode character variations, including soft keyboards.
Imagine, there was a switch for bold, cursive, etc on your phone keyboard, why would you want to type markup?
And nobody would take **bold** away, if you want to write that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Would you have to do that for every letter? I suppose a "bold-on/bold-off" character combination would be better/easier, and then you could combine multiple styles without multiplying the number of glyphs by some ridiculous number.

Anyways, because markup is already standardized, mostly. Having both unicode and markup would be a nightmare. More complicated markup (bulleted lists, tables) is simpler than it would be in Unicode. And markup is outside of Unicode's intended purpose, which is to have a collection of every glyph. Styling is separate from glyphs, and has been for a long time, for good reason. Fonts, bold/italics/underline/strikethrough, color, tables and lists, headings, font size, etc. are simply not something Unicode is designed to handle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Would you have to do that for every letter? I suppose a "bold-on/bold-off" character combination would be better/easier,

Yeah, had the same thought, edited already.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't like that approach. Text search won't find all the different possible Unicode representations.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You always find some excuses, huh? That would be a bug.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Always? That's my first reply. Bug of what? A flaired character has a different code than a standard one, so your files would be incompatible with any established tools like find or grep.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

My bad, confused you with someone else.

You can always update them.