4 ms·

This kind of stupid thing is my problem with Unicode. We have all this baggage for stuff that nobody uses, and we need to deal with it forever. The worst for me

This kind of stupid thing is my problem with Unicode. We have all this baggage for stuff that nobody uses, and we need to deal with it forever. The worst for me is the way there is no possible way to encode a grapheme cluster as a constant size, so using Unicode make it impossible to have simple character access like an old style c string, no matter how big you make your char, even though it's totally possible with damn near every language that people actually use. So then we all end up paying this massive complexity tax everywhere to pay for support for some Mongolian script that died out 200 years ago (or multi codepoint encodings of simple things like é - just why, it was so avoidable).

JohnFen 4y ago
I hear you. I loathe working with Unicode for this exact reason. It's a bit of a nightmare due to its complexity. That said, what it's trying to do is enormously complex.
mkipper 4y ago
Before Unicode, everyone who came up with a character encoding scheme probably thought their system was good enough for any reasonable use-case. But they all had limitations that made them inadequate for things less obscure than representing some dead Mongolian language. It would be nice if we could come up with some magical system that optimally encodes all the text that "matters" and ignores everything else, but history has shown that to be very hard. So we're left with Unicode, which takes the approach of giving us (effectively) infinite code points to represent characters, with (effectively) infinite ways to visually represent them. That does lead to a bunch of "unnecessary" baggage and headaches, but it also solves a bunch of real problems that you probably don't know exist. Unicode is a pain in the ass, but it's a solution to a very hard problem. You can feel free to design your own solution, but you'll probably run head-first into all the problems Unicode was trying to solve from 40 years ago.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
I'm getting the impression that this is only "obvious" from a latin-cyrillic-greek alphabet point of view ? P.S.: Also, even for those, it would seem that one of the big reasons for things like combining characters was added to Unicode in order to be backwards compatible even with mutually incompatible encodings ?
lifthrasiir 4y ago
Your notion of character doesn't necessarily match others, and there are many cases where the number of possible "characters" in some notion is unbounded. Unicode provides a very well-defined superset of those notions for you. Collecting characters is only a minor portion of their jobs.
gnulinux 4y ago
Have you ever written software before Unicode? We had N different encodings for each language, each culture, each country. There were all kinds of bugs creeping up, and software that works perfectly well could be buggy for one random language. Unicode abstracted all of this away from the programmer in a pretty simple fashion. I simply do not see how we're paying the "complexity tax" by using Unicode, unless you're writing a library that handles Unicode (which you shouldn't do, you should use existing libraries) you don't need to know anything about Unicode.
svat 4y ago
> encode a grapheme cluster as a constant size […] totally possible with damn near every language that people actually use This is not true. For a concrete example: the languages Hindi and Marathi, with ~500 million speakers, use the Devanagari script (also used by Nepali and Sanskrit), in which a grapheme cluster is (usually) a sequence of consonants followed by a vowel. For instance, something like "bhuktvā" (भुक्त्वा) would be two grapheme clusters, one (भु) for "bhu" and one (क्त्वा) for "ktvā". In Unicode each vowel and consonant (here, bh, u, k, t, v, ā) is separately encoded, which is the only reasonable thing to do, and inevitably means that grapheme clusters can have different lengths (number of code points). The alternative would have been to encode every possible (sequence of consonants + vowel) as a single codepoint, which gets ridiculous quickly: these sequences can be up to 5 consonants long, so you'd end up having to encode (33^5 * 13 ≈ 500M) codepoints for Devanagari alone (or completely prevent certain sequences of consonants from being expressed, which makes no sense either), not to mention that most of the scripts of the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia follow the same principle and have similar issues (e.g. Bengali with 250M speakers, Telugu, Javanese, Punjabi, Kannada, Gujarati, Thai with over 50M speakers each, etc). (See chapters 12–17 of the Unicode standard, currently version 15: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch12.pdf https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch12.pdf)

JohnFen 4y ago

I hear you. I loathe working with Unicode for this exact reason. It's a bit of a nightmare due to its complexity. That said, what it's trying to do is enormously complex.

mkipper 4y ago

Before Unicode, everyone who came up with a character encoding scheme probably thought their system was good enough for any reasonable use-case. But they all had limitations that made them inadequate for things less obscure than representing some dead Mongolian language. It would be nice if we could come up with some magical system that optimally encodes all the text that "matters" and ignores everything else, but history has shown that to be very hard. So we're left with Unicode, which takes the approach of giving us (effectively) infinite code points to represent characters, with (effectively) infinite ways to visually represent them. That does lead to a bunch of "unnecessary" baggage and headaches, but it also solves a bunch of real problems that you probably don't know exist. Unicode is a pain in the ass, but it's a solution to a very hard problem. You can feel free to design your own solution, but you'll probably run head-first into all the problems Unicode was trying to solve from 40 years ago.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

I'm getting the impression that this is only "obvious" from a latin-cyrillic-greek alphabet point of view ? P.S.: Also, even for those, it would seem that one of the big reasons for things like combining characters was added to Unicode in order to be backwards compatible even with mutually incompatible encodings ?

lifthrasiir 4y ago

Your notion of character doesn't necessarily match others, and there are many cases where the number of possible "characters" in some notion is unbounded. Unicode provides a very well-defined superset of those notions for you. Collecting characters is only a minor portion of their jobs.

gnulinux 4y ago

Have you ever written software before Unicode? We had N different encodings for each language, each culture, each country. There were all kinds of bugs creeping up, and software that works perfectly well could be buggy for one random language. Unicode abstracted all of this away from the programmer in a pretty simple fashion. I simply do not see how we're paying the "complexity tax" by using Unicode, unless you're writing a library that handles Unicode (which you shouldn't do, you should use existing libraries) you don't need to know anything about Unicode.

svat 4y ago

> encode a grapheme cluster as a constant size […] totally possible with damn near every language that people actually use This is not true. For a concrete example: the languages Hindi and Marathi, with ~500 million speakers, use the Devanagari script (also used by Nepali and Sanskrit), in which a grapheme cluster is (usually) a sequence of consonants followed by a vowel. For instance, something like "bhuktvā" (भुक्त्वा) would be two grapheme clusters, one (भु) for "bhu" and one (क्त्वा) for "ktvā". In Unicode each vowel and consonant (here, bh, u, k, t, v, ā) is separately encoded, which is the only reasonable thing to do, and inevitably means that grapheme clusters can have different lengths (number of code points). The alternative would have been to encode every possible (sequence of consonants + vowel) as a single codepoint, which gets ridiculous quickly: these sequences can be up to 5 consonants long, so you'd end up having to encode (33^5 * 13 ≈ 500M) codepoints for Devanagari alone (or completely prevent certain sequences of consonants from being expressed, which makes no sense either), not to mention that most of the scripts of the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia follow the same principle and have similar issues (e.g. Bengali with 250M speakers, Telugu, Javanese, Punjabi, Kannada, Gujarati, Thai with over 50M speakers each, etc). (See chapters 12–17 of the Unicode standard, currently version 15: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch12.pdf https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch12.pdf)