gandalf_der_12te comments on My favorite part of the job

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

i think you think that telephone numbers are well-structured. they are not. they are messy. they do not fit a certain schematic.

I recommend also the following topic: "people have names". https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

Names do not in general fit into the schematic "first name, last name"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Is there not a "falsehoods programmers think about phone numbers" yet?

Edit: And once again, I'm still confused about some of these. Do we need to expand unicode for names? It's supposed to be universal. WTF is up with 40?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

WTF is up with 40?

People have names.

I suppose that a counterexample to this might be Tibetan children, who get named at puberty, IIRC. Before that, they have no names. They are just referred to as "child" or "somebody's child".

People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points.

I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there's no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 1 year ago

Ah, so it dovetails with the whole "children get a name reasonably fast" thing. I was interpreting that as "ever, in a natural lifespan". My bad, haha.

I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.

True, but there's little risk of a name being entered into a form without some kind of transcription.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent