3 ms·
Sure, you're not wrong. For my purposes that'd work, but I'm of the opinion that delegating that to an optional library will make a lot of developers lazy and n
by moogly 5y ago
Sure, you're not wrong. For my purposes that'd work, but I'm of the opinion that delegating that to an optional library will make a lot of developers lazy and not even bother thinking about Unicode/i18n/l10n issues at all. I've seen so much code, in a multitude of languages that is oblivious to it, but even if it's reified in a type or even having some form of language support, I guess you can argue that people can still ignore it.
- mikepurvis 5y agoThat was basically the state of affairs with strings in Python 2, and although the transition was awful, I'm really, really appreciative of Python 3 now having clearly-separated str and bytes types.
- moogly 5y agoIn addition, I should add there are synergy effects in having the community (and the major libraries) settling on a common way, and you'll only really get that if there is a built-in. However, if the philosophy here is to be unopinionated and optimize for flexibility over everything else, I feel I can't really fault them for making that choice.