Re: [dev] Different versions of suckless libutf

From: Kamil Cholewiński <>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:43:10 +0200

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Connor Lane Smith <> wrote:
> So the question is whether libutf is meant to deal only with UTF-8
> (which is constant), or other Unicode features too (which are
> dynamic).

My point is, whenever possible, make the library user's life better.

Frozen implementation? It'd be nice to have, but we're not living in a
frozen world - if Unicode moves on, user's program will either have to
follow (one way or another), or break, possibly resulting in security

A stable library interface is already great value. If all I need is to
re-link and deploy, I'm happy.

At $WORK, I build things other people use to build their things. It's
not C libraries, but the story is quite similar. My thing's interface is
stable, things that ran 3 years ago still run today - that's in a place
where we build ca 100 new things a year. But the implementation details
of my thing keep evolving. Yes, it's getting horribly complex, but
that's because the problem domain is horribly complex. You can't brush
it under the carpet, the complexity has to be handled at some point. But
we're happy, because 10 other teams don't have to repeat my work.

Received on Wed Jun 01 2016 - 21:43:10 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 01 2016 - 21:48:10 CEST