3 ms·

Now, look over here! When I substitute this context with that, ka-pow! now it's an array of characters! Big deal. I don't understand what the point of this a

Now, look over here! When I substitute this context with that, ka-pow! now it's an array of characters! Big deal. I don't understand what the point of this article is when it shows the shortcomings of half a dozen different string implementations in random languages. Yes, if you don't understand the language, then your assumptions about how it works may be wrong. Big surprise, that doesn't mean every string implementation needs to conform to your expectations...

kbenson 13y ago
Unicode is a standard. It says how to act in these circumstances. Calling out incorrect unicode implementations is useful. You shouldn't have to worry about inconsistent behavior between different languages that purport to support unicode strings. That's the point of a standard.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  So who is the authority about correct unicode implementations, exactly? And how to different languages with different use cases and power conform to such a standard? Why doesn't this authority extend over language implementations? Because they know what they are doing, and understand the domain, unlike the author of this article. Look, I'm all for open standards, but saying that standards are required to be adhered to at the programming language level is just ignorance of the real world. The point of a standard isn't to dictate how data is architectured internally, it's to facilitate interoperability of systems at their endpoints. If you want interoperability of programmers, than make your own conforming language and get programmers to adopt it the right way, by competing in the market of ideas. There is no idea here other than the writer's unjustified expectation that he should just know how every language handles Unicode because??? Because Unicode is a standard? No.. that doesn't make sense at all. Mixing contexts to make the point here means there is no ground for his argument to stand on.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    So who is the authority about correct unicode implementations, exactly? The Unicode Consortium[1] publishes standards. If a language advertises unicode support, I expect it to follow that standard. Look, I'm all for open standards, but saying that standards are required to be adhered to at the programming language level is just ignorance of the real world I'm not saying a language has to do anything, but if it's advertising support for a well defined feature, and does not deliver correctly on that, I will call them out on it, and support anyone else who does as well. Should we all just throw our hands up and say "Well, it's done now, no point in making a big deal of it?" I would rather apply pressure to get things fixed, or at least make it well known enough that future language designers give it the care and attention it's due. There is no idea here other than the writer's unjustified expectation that he should just know how every language handles Unicode because??? Because Unicode is a standard? No.. Are you under the impression that what the author is attempting is not well defined? The unicode standard has conformance clauses about how to interpret unicode strings[2]. That means that if a language advertises it has/supports unicode strings, and fails the tests we've just seen, it's not conformant with the unicode standard. That would make this useful because it's pointing out bugs. If a language does not advertise unicode support, but supports some unicode features, then this is useful because it's making sure people are aware of the limits of their language. All too often people refer to the native string implementation in their language as supporting unicode, when clearly there are problems. 1: http://www.unicode.org/ http://www.unicode.org/ 2: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch03.pdf http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch03.pdf (see section 3.2)

kbenson 13y ago

Unicode is a standard. It says how to act in these circumstances. Calling out incorrect unicode implementations is useful. You shouldn't have to worry about inconsistent behavior between different languages that purport to support unicode strings. That's the point of a standard.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
So who is the authority about correct unicode implementations, exactly? And how to different languages with different use cases and power conform to such a standard? Why doesn't this authority extend over language implementations? Because they know what they are doing, and understand the domain, unlike the author of this article. Look, I'm all for open standards, but saying that standards are required to be adhered to at the programming language level is just ignorance of the real world. The point of a standard isn't to dictate how data is architectured internally, it's to facilitate interoperability of systems at their endpoints. If you want interoperability of programmers, than make your own conforming language and get programmers to adopt it the right way, by competing in the market of ideas. There is no idea here other than the writer's unjustified expectation that he should just know how every language handles Unicode because??? Because Unicode is a standard? No.. that doesn't make sense at all. Mixing contexts to make the point here means there is no ground for his argument to stand on.
- kbenson 13y ago
  So who is the authority about correct unicode implementations, exactly? The Unicode Consortium[1] publishes standards. If a language advertises unicode support, I expect it to follow that standard. Look, I'm all for open standards, but saying that standards are required to be adhered to at the programming language level is just ignorance of the real world I'm not saying a language has to do anything, but if it's advertising support for a well defined feature, and does not deliver correctly on that, I will call them out on it, and support anyone else who does as well. Should we all just throw our hands up and say "Well, it's done now, no point in making a big deal of it?" I would rather apply pressure to get things fixed, or at least make it well known enough that future language designers give it the care and attention it's due. There is no idea here other than the writer's unjustified expectation that he should just know how every language handles Unicode because??? Because Unicode is a standard? No.. Are you under the impression that what the author is attempting is not well defined? The unicode standard has conformance clauses about how to interpret unicode strings[2]. That means that if a language advertises it has/supports unicode strings, and fails the tests we've just seen, it's not conformant with the unicode standard. That would make this useful because it's pointing out bugs. If a language does not advertise unicode support, but supports some unicode features, then this is useful because it's making sure people are aware of the limits of their language. All too often people refer to the native string implementation in their language as supporting unicode, when clearly there are problems. 1: http://www.unicode.org/ http://www.unicode.org/ 2: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch03.pdf http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch03.pdf (see section 3.2)