> Eg maybe insert “a” at position 0 is valid, but inserting at position 1 would be invalid because it might insert in the middle of a codepoint.

You have the same problem with code points, it's just hidden better. Inserting "a" between U+0065 and U+0308 may result in a "valid" string but is still as nonsensical as inserting "a" between UTF-8 bytes 0xC3 and 0xAB.

This makes code points less suitable than UTF-8 bytes as mistakes are more likely to not be caught during development.

> Telling people to ignore code points

Nobody is saying that, the point is that if you're parsing Unicode by counting codepoints you're doing it wrong. The way you actually parse Unicode text (in 99% of cases) is by iterating through the codepoints, and then the actual count is fairly irrelevant, it's just a stream.

Other uses of codepoint length are also questionable: for measurement it's useless, for bounds checking (random access) it's inefficient. It may be useful in some edge cases, but TFA's point is that a general purpose language's default string type shouldn't optimize for edge cases.

You’re arguing against a strawman. The advice wasn’t to ignore learning about code points; it’s that if your solution to a problem involves reasoning about code points, you’re probably doing it wrong and are likely to make a mistake.

Trying to handle code points as atomic units fails even in trivial and extremely common cases like diacritics, before you even get to more complicated situations like emoji variants. Solving pretty much any real-world problem involving a Unicode string requires factoring in canonical forms, equivalence classes, collation, and even locale. Many problems can’t even be solved at the _character_ (grapheme) level—text selection, for example, has to be handled at the grapheme _cluster_ level. And even then you need a rich understanding of those graphemes to know whether to break them apart for selection (ligatures like fi) or keep them intact (Hangul jamo).

Yes, people should learn about code points. Including why they aren’t the level they should be interacting with strings at.

> Telling people to ignore code points is telling people to ignore how data works.

No, it's telling people that they're don't understand how data works otherwise they'd be using a different unit of measurement

Any correctly designed grapheme cluster handles emoji characters. It’s part of the spec (says the guy who wrote a Unicode segmentation library for rust).

Well I'm not American and I can tell you that we do not see English source code as imperialism.

In fact it's awesome that we have one common very simple character set and language that works everywhere and can do everything.

I have only encountered source code using my native language (German) in comments or variable names in highly unprofessional or awful software and it is looked down upon. You will always get an ugly mix and have to mentally stop to figure out which language a name is in. It's simply not worth it.

Please stop pushing this UTF-8 everywhere nonsense. Make it work great on interactive/UI/user facing elements but stop putting UTF-8-only restrictions in low-level software. Example: Copied a bunch of ebooks to my phone, including one with a mangled non-UTF-8 name. It was ridiculously hard to delete the file as most Android graphical and console tools either didn't recognize it or crashed.

It's neither American nor imperialism -- those are both category mistakes.

Andreas Rumpf, the designer of Nim, is Austrian. All the keywords of Nim are in English, the library function names are in English, the documentation is in English, Rumpf's book Mastering Nim is in English, the other major book for the language, Nim In Action (written by Dominik Picheta, nationality unknown but not American) is in English ... this is not "American imperialism" (which is a real thing that I don't defend), it's for easily understandable pragmatic reasons. And the language parser doesn't disallow non-ASCII characters but it doesn't treat them linguistically, and it has special rules for casefolding identifiers that only recognize ASCII letters, hobbling the use of non-ASCII identifiers because case distinguishes between types and other identifiers. The reason for this lack of handling of Unicode linguistically is simply to make the lexer smaller and faster.

Actually, it would be great to have a lingua franca in every field that all participants can understand. Are you also going to complain that biologists and doctors are expected to learn some rudimentary Latin? English being dominant in computing is absolutely a strength and we gain nothing by trying to combat that. Having support for writing your code in other languages is not going to change that most libraries will use English and and most documentation will be in English and most people you can ask for help will understand English. If you want to participate and refuse to learn English you are only shooting yourself in the foot - and if you are going to learn English you may as well do it from the beginning. Also due to the dominance of English and ASCII in computing history, most languages already have ASCII-alternatives for their writing so even if you need to refer to non-English names you can do that using only ASCII.

Calm down, ASCII is a UNICODE compatible encoding for the first 127 UNICODE code points (which maps directly to the entire ASCII range). If you need to go beyond that, just 'upgrade' to UTF-8 encoding.

UNICODE is essentially a superset of ASCII, and the UTF-8 encoding also contains ASCII as compatible subset (e.g. for the first 127 UNICODE code points, an UTF-8 encoded string is byte-by-byte compatible with the same string encoded in ASCII).

Just don't use any of the Extended ASCII flavours (e.g. "8-bit ASCII with codepages") - or any of the legacy 'national' multibyte encodings (Shift-JIS etc...) because that's how you get the infamous `?????` or `♥♥♥♥♥` mismatches which are commonly associated with 'ASCII' (but this is not ASCII, but some flavour of Extended ASCII decoded with the wrong codepage).

I don’t see much difference between the amount of Italian you need for music and the amount of English you need for programming. You can have a conversation about it in your native language, but you’ll be using a bunch of domain-specific terms that may not be in your native language.

There was a time when most scientific literature was written in French. People learned French. Before that it was Latin. People learned Latin.

American Imperialism has absolutely resulted in some horrible things, but I hardly think that ASCII is one of them.

ASCII wasn't "imperialism," it was pragmatism. Yes, it privileged English -- but that's because the engineers designing it _spoke_ English and the US was funding + exporting most of the early computer and networking gear. The US Military essentially gave the world TCP/IP (via DARPA) for free!

Maybe "cultural dominance", but "imperialism at its worst" is a ridiculous take.

Yea, I cringe when I hear the phrase "special characters." They're only special because you, the developer, decided to treat them as special, and that's almost surely going to come back to haunt you at some point in the form of a bug.

Apparently Python uses a variety of internal representations depending on the string itself. I looked it up because I saw UTF-32 and thought there's no way that's what they do -- it's pretty much always the wrong answer.

It uses Latin-1 for ASCII strings, UCS-2 for strings that contain code points in the BMP and UCS-4 only for strings that contain code points outside the BMP.

It would be pretty silly for them to explode all strings to 4-byte characters.

Such languages do not have strings. Definitionally a string is a sequence of characters, and more than 256 characters exist. A byte sequence is just an encoding; if you are working with that encoding directly and have to do the interpretation yourself, you are not using a string.

But if you do want a sequence of bytes for whatever reason, you can trivially obtain that in any version of Python.

I would like an utf-8 optimized bag of bytes where arbitrary byte operations are possible but the buffer keeps track of whether is it valid utf-8 or not (for every edit of n bytes it should be enough to check about n+8 bytes to validate) then utf-8 then utf-8 encoding/decoding becomes a noop and utf-8 specific apis can check quickly is the string is malformed or not.

Me too.

The languages that i really dont get are those that force valid utf-8 everywhere but dont enforce NFC. Which is most of them but seems like the worst of both worlds.

Non normalized unicode is just as problematic as non validated unicode imo.

Python has byte arrays that allow for that, in addition to strings consisting of arrays of Unicode code points.

Yes, I always roll my eyes when people complain that C strings or C++'s std::string/string_view don't have Unicode support. They are bags of bytes with support for concatenation. Any other transformation isn't going to have a "correct" way to do it so you need to be aware of what you want anyway.

The point is that not all sequences of characters ("code point" means the integer value, whereas "character" means the thing that number represents) are valid.

Yep for a substring against its parent or other substrings of the same parent that’s definitely true, but I think this question generalizes because the case where you’re comparing strings solely within themselves is an optimization path for the more general. I’m just thinking out loud.

As the parent said:

> In the case of Wordle, you know the exact set of letters you’re going to be using

This holds for the generator side too. In fact, you have a fixed word list, and the fixed alphabet tells you what a "letter" is, and thus how to compute length. Because this concerns natural language, this will coincide with grapheme clusters, and with English Wordle, that will in turn correspond to byte length because it won't give you words with é (I think). In different languages the grapheme clusters might be larger than 1 byte (e.g. [1], where they're codepoints).

In German you have the same, only within one language. ß can be written as ss if it isn't available in a font, and only in 2017 they added a capital version. So depending the font and the unicode version the number of letters can differ.

That's not really any different than the distinction (or lack thereof) between "ae" and "æ". For that matter, in Russian there is a letter "ы" which is historically a digraph consisting of two separately letters "ъ" and "i" that just happens to be treated as a single letter for so long that few people would even recognize it as a digraph. This kind of stuff is all language-specific, which is why for Worlde etc you always need to be aware of the context, and this context will then unambiguously decide what constitutes a single letter.

Niße. ;)

It is not possible to write correct code without understanding what you dismiss here.

If the validation rules don't specify (either explicitly or implicitly) what the "length" in the rule corresponds to (if it concerns a natural-language field, it's probably grapheme clusters), then either you should fix the rule, or you care only about checking the box of "I checked the validation rules", in which case it's a people problem and not a technology problem.

You are in the wrong job if you don’t want to think about “nerd shit” while programming.

My point is that "the human way" is not specific to the way you think about these things.

If you restrict the input to ASCII, then it makes sense to talk about "string length" in this manner. But we're not talking about Unicode strings at all then.

If you do allow Unicode characters in whatever it is you're validating, then your approach is almost certainly wrong for some valid input.

Practically speaking, for maximum lengths, you generally want to limit code points or bytes, not characters. You don't want to allow some ZALGO monstrosity in a password that is 5 characters but 500 bytes.

For exact lengths, you often have a restricted character set (like for phone numbers) and can validate both characters and length with a regex. Or the length in bytes works for 0–9.

Unless you're involved in text layout, you actually usually don't wind up needing the exact length in characters of arbitrary UTF-8 text.

> I want to make sure that the password is between a given number of characters. Same with phone numbers, email addresses, etc.

> This seems to have always been known as the length of the string.

Sure. And by this definition, the string discussed in TFA (that consists of a facepalm emoji with a skin tone set) objectively has 5 characters in it, and therefore a length of 5. And it has always had 5 characters in it, since it was first possible to create such a string.

Similarly, "é" has one character in it, but "é" has two despite appearing visually identical. Furthermore, those two strings will not compare equal in any sane programming language without explicit normalization (unless HN's software has normalized them already). If you allow passwords or email addresses to contain things like this, then you have to reckon with that brute fact.

None of this is new. These things have fundamentally been true since the introduction of Unicode in 1991.