On a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea to have codepoints that can take up to an arbitrary number of bytes - this just screams buffer overflow problems.
So in practicality, you’re going to want an arbitrary limit on this (the article suggests as much). But if you place a limit on it then you’ve got one implementation of the standard that can decode certain characters and another that can’t. Better to have one standard that puts a hard limit on the number of bytes and another standard that uses more bytes and so on.
Without endorsing this specific idea, I think maybe after over half a century of C that this argument shouldn't get in the way of a new standard. Pretty much every other language has managed to solve this problem, and the people who write new projects in C/C++ have decided they're not concerned about buffer overflows, so if someone decides to start a new project using something like this (or go out of their way to add support for it to an existing project), that's kind of on them. The rest of computing shouldn't get stuck in 1972 forever.
I agree C has a lot of problems. The nice thing about C is that it’s a rigorous standard (C90, C99, C23, etc.) with multiple actively maintained implementations (GCC, LLVM/clang, TCC, etc.) so standards compliant C code should (in theory) compile and run for the foreseeable future.
Python, Rust, Perl, etc. are all languages with a single actively maintained implementation and haven’t had the rigorous standardization C and POSIX utilities (Awk, /bin/sh, sed, etc.) have had.
> standards compliant C code should (in theory) compile and run for the foreseeable future
Yes, but the problem is that we have decades of examples of showing that even the best programmers in the world in practice will write code that isn't "standards compliant" in a way that prevents UB.
2shortplanks · · focus · HN ↗
So in practicality, you’re going to want an arbitrary limit on this (the article suggests as much). But if you place a limit on it then you’ve got one implementation of the standard that can decode certain characters and another that can’t. Better to have one standard that puts a hard limit on the number of bytes and another standard that uses more bytes and so on.
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
Without endorsing this specific idea, I think maybe after over half a century of C that this argument shouldn't get in the way of a new standard. Pretty much every other language has managed to solve this problem, and the people who write new projects in C/C++ have decided they're not concerned about buffer overflows, so if someone decides to start a new project using something like this (or go out of their way to add support for it to an existing project), that's kind of on them. The rest of computing shouldn't get stuck in 1972 forever.
strenholme · · focus · HN ↗
Python, Rust, Perl, etc. are all languages with a single actively maintained implementation and haven’t had the rigorous standardization C and POSIX utilities (Awk, /bin/sh, sed, etc.) have had.
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, but the problem is that we have decades of examples of showing that even the best programmers in the world in practice will write code that isn't "standards compliant" in a way that prevents UB.