4 ms·

This is a MySQL limitation that they have fixed in recent releases (as the OP notes). It's not fair to blame Unicode at large for MySQL problems. However, it's

by mrj 14y ago

This is a MySQL limitation that they have fixed in recent releases (as the OP notes). It's not fair to blame Unicode at large for MySQL problems. However, it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology. Support in applications still varies widely. I wouldn't characterize it as cutting edge though, since we have many mainstream programming languages built using Unicode internally.

masklinn 14y ago
> This is a MySQL limitation that they have fixed in recent releases (as the OP notes) TFA notes that this is not fixed, the `utf-8` mysql encoding still isn't utf-8. And as TFA also notes related technologies (aka drivers) may not be compatible with it (the example he uses, mysql2 for Ruby, still hasn't had an official release supporting utf8mb4[0]) > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encountering astral planes issues in 2012 when Unicode 2.0 was introduced in 1996. [0] https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/issues/249 https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/issues/249
- mrj 14y ago
  > > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology > That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encountering astral planes issues in 2012 when Unicode 2.0 was introduced in 1996. I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. There are bugs in old stuff all the time but (most) people don't throw a fit.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Unicode is being called 'cutting edge' because it's no longer 'old hat.' Lots of things claim support for Unicode, but few (or none) support it well. Unicode isn't a software project, it's a spec/idea. It's like calling a Star Trek tricorder "cutting edge" because no one has implemented a fully-functional version. Sure the idea has been around for a while, but at this point there's no acceptable manifestations of that idea.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. Not supporting astral planes and saying you're supporting utf-8 is not a bug, it's a lie.
- crazygringo 14y ago
  Honestly it's probably better they don't change the behavior of an existing MySQL character set. Who knows what software out there depends on it breaking on 4-byte characters, or whatnot. Creating a new character set `utf8mb4` was the right thing to do, as annoying as it is. Just clearly label the `utf8` collation as 'deprecated' in the docs or something.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > Honestly it's probably better they don't change the behavior of an existing MySQL character set. Or they could just have implemented it correctly to start with, considering unicode "support" was introduced in mysql 4.1. In 2005. > Who knows what software out there depends on it breaking on 4-byte characters, or whatnot. Then again, mysql routinely drops and corrupts data anyway, I'm sure its "users" could have dealt with it corrupting data slightly less than before.

by mrj 14y ago

masklinn 14y ago

> This is a MySQL limitation that they have fixed in recent releases (as the OP notes) TFA notes that this is not fixed, the `utf-8` mysql encoding still isn't utf-8. And as TFA also notes related technologies (aka drivers) may not be compatible with it (the example he uses, mysql2 for Ruby, still hasn't had an official release supporting utf8mb4[0]) > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encountering astral planes issues in 2012 when Unicode 2.0 was introduced in 1996. [0] https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/issues/249 https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/issues/249

mrj 14y ago
> > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology > That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encountering astral planes issues in 2012 when Unicode 2.0 was introduced in 1996. I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. There are bugs in old stuff all the time but (most) people don't throw a fit.
- pyre 14y ago
  Unicode is being called 'cutting edge' because it's no longer 'old hat.' Lots of things claim support for Unicode, but few (or none) support it well. Unicode isn't a software project, it's a spec/idea. It's like calling a Star Trek tricorder "cutting edge" because no one has implemented a fully-functional version. Sure the idea has been around for a while, but at this point there's no acceptable manifestations of that idea.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. Not supporting astral planes and saying you're supporting utf-8 is not a bug, it's a lie.
crazygringo 14y ago
Honestly it's probably better they don't change the behavior of an existing MySQL character set. Who knows what software out there depends on it breaking on 4-byte characters, or whatnot. Creating a new character set `utf8mb4` was the right thing to do, as annoying as it is. Just clearly label the `utf8` collation as 'deprecated' in the docs or something.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Honestly it's probably better they don't change the behavior of an existing MySQL character set. Or they could just have implemented it correctly to start with, considering unicode "support" was introduced in mysql 4.1. In 2005. > Who knows what software out there depends on it breaking on 4-byte characters, or whatnot. Then again, mysql routinely drops and corrupts data anyway, I'm sure its "users" could have dealt with it corrupting data slightly less than before.