3 ms·
> Does anyone have any criticisms of ULIDs I'm not a fan of the Crockford encoding, since it supports noncanonical forms that'll silently trash the lexicograph
by inopinatus 6y ago
> Does anyone have any criticisms of ULIDs
I'm not a fan of the Crockford encoding, since it supports noncanonical forms that'll silently trash the lexicographic sorting assertion when present, and the exclusion of "U" as some kind of profanity filter is both prissy and ineffective.
base58 seems better, vs my own fat fingers at any rate.
- arethuza 6y ago"It excludes the letters I, L, and O to avoid confusion with digits. It also excludes the letter U to reduce the likelihood of accidental obscenity." Excluding ILO doesn't seem a bad idea - but leaving out U for that particular reasons seems downright weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base32#Crockford's_Base32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base32#Crockford's_Base32
- inopinatus 6y agoIt doesn’t exclude them. Ignore the Wikipedia text, and look at the decoding table instead.
- arethuza 6y agoTrue - they should be generated during encoding but are allowed during decoding: https://web.archive.org/web/20021223012947/http://www.crockford.com/wrmg/base32.html https://web.archive.org/web/20021223012947/http://www.crockf...
- munawwar 6y agobase58 avoids 0 as it looks similar to capital O in some fonts. Seems more reasonable than U.