On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the event that i change my mind about Unicode, and/or for > the sake of others, who may want to know, please provide a > list of languages that *YOU* think handle Unicode better than > Python, starting with the best first. Thanks.
jmf has been asked this before, and as I recall he seems to feel that UTF-8 should be used for all purposes, ignoring the limitations of that encoding such as that indexing becomes a O(n) operation. He has pointed at Go as an example of a language wherein Unicode "just works", although I think that others do not necessarily agree [1]. He also seems to have a strange notion of the meaning of the word "buggy". He frequently uses that word to describe the Python 3.3 Unicode implementation, although he can't seem to demonstrate any actual bugs. Instead, he points at cherry-picked micro-benchmarks that show Python's old "narrow" Unicode implementation (which did not properly support SMP characters, unlike the "wide" implementation which was a much greater memory hog than the version he's now complaining about) outperforming the PEP-393 implementation while completely ignoring any real-world benchmarks. [1] https://coderwall.com/p/k7zvyg/dealing-with-unicode-in-go -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
