1. Due to its simplicity for a large group of naïve users, the library will likely be prone to over- and misuse. Since the library uses guessing as its method of decoding, and by definition a guess may be wrong, this will lead to some unnecessary data corruption in situations where use of this library (and the resulting data corruption) was not actually needed.
2. The library uses a one-size-fits-all model in the area of guessing encodings and language. This has historically proven to be less than a good idea, since different users in different situations use different data and encodings, and your library’s algorithm will not fit all situations equally well. I suggested that a more tunable and customizable approach would indeed be the best one could do in the cases where the encoding is actually not known. (This minor complexity in use of the library would also have the benefit of discouraging overuse in unwarranted situations, thus also resolving the first point, above.)
You have, as far as I can see, not yet responded substantively to the first point, and for the second point you have only asserted that your user-uncustomizable alorithm is superior to any possible other automatically derived algorithm.
Yet, I’m the one who deserves a Plonk? I think not.
1. Due to its simplicity for a large group of naïve users, the library will likely be prone to over- and misuse. Since the library uses guessing as its method of decoding, and by definition a guess may be wrong, this will lead to some unnecessary data corruption in situations where use of this library (and the resulting data corruption) was not actually needed.
2. The library uses a one-size-fits-all model in the area of guessing encodings and language. This has historically proven to be less than a good idea, since different users in different situations use different data and encodings, and your library’s algorithm will not fit all situations equally well. I suggested that a more tunable and customizable approach would indeed be the best one could do in the cases where the encoding is actually not known. (This minor complexity in use of the library would also have the benefit of discouraging overuse in unwarranted situations, thus also resolving the first point, above.)
You have, as far as I can see, not yet responded substantively to the first point, and for the second point you have only asserted that your user-uncustomizable alorithm is superior to any possible other automatically derived algorithm.
Yet, I’m the one who deserves a Plonk? I think not.