Code page 437, the original character set for the IBM PC, includes a small house character (⌂) because it was intended for general business use, not just programming. Inspired by the pre-existing PETSCII character set, IBM included symbols useful for forms, diagrams, and even simple games. The house, specifically, was likely included to represent "home" in directory structures or for drawing simple diagrams, similar to how other box-drawing characters are utilized. This practicality over pure programming focus explains many of 437's seemingly unusual choices.
Internationalization-puzzles.com offers daily programming challenges focused on the complexities of internationalization (i18n). Similar in format to Advent of Code, each puzzle presents a real-world i18n problem that requires coding solutions, covering areas like character encoding, locale handling, text directionality, and date/time formatting. The site provides immediate feedback and solutions in multiple languages, encouraging developers to learn and practice the often-overlooked nuances of building globally accessible software.
Hacker News users generally expressed enthusiasm for the Internationalization-puzzles site, comparing it favorably to Advent of Code and praising its focus on practical i18n problem-solving. Several commenters highlighted the educational value of the puzzles, noting that they offer a fun way to learn about common i18n pitfalls. Some suggested potential improvements, like adding hints or explanations and expanding the range of languages and frameworks covered. A few users also shared their own experiences with i18n challenges, reinforcing the importance of the topic. The overall sentiment was positive, with many expressing interest in trying the puzzles themselves.
Some Windows filenames appear unreadable due to the way Windows handles characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). While newer versions support Unicode, older NTFS implementations only understand UTF-16, which uses surrogate pairs to represent these extended characters. A surrogate pair is two special 16-bit code units that together represent a single character outside the BMP. If a filename contains such a character and is accessed by a system or application that doesn't properly interpret surrogate pairs, it can't reconstruct the intended character, resulting in a garbled or unreadable filename. This issue primarily arises with older software or when transferring files between systems with different Unicode handling capabilities.
HN users discuss various aspects of surrogate pairs and Unicode. Several commenters highlight the complexity and nuances of Unicode handling, particularly in different programming languages and operating systems. Some mention the challenges of correctly processing and displaying these characters, with specific examples of issues encountered in Windows and other environments. The discussion also touches upon the historical context of surrogate pairs, the difference between UTF-16 and UTF-8, and the importance of proper encoding and decoding. A few commenters offer practical advice and resources for dealing with surrogate pairs, including libraries and tools. There's a general agreement that handling Unicode correctly requires careful attention and a deep understanding of its intricacies.
The blog post explores encoding arbitrary data within seemingly innocuous emojis. By exploiting the variation selectors and zero-width joiners in Unicode, the author demonstrates how to embed invisible data into an emoji sequence. This hidden data can be later extracted by specifically looking for these normally unseen characters. While seemingly a novelty, the author highlights potential security implications, suggesting possibilities like bypassing filters or exfiltrating data subtly. This hidden channel could be used in scenarios where visible communication is restricted or monitored.
Several Hacker News commenters express skepticism about the practicality of the emoji data smuggling technique described in the article. They point out the significant overhead and inefficiency introduced by the encoding scheme, making it impractical for any substantial data transfer. Some suggest that simpler methods like steganography within image files would be far more efficient. Others question the real-world applications, arguing that such a convoluted method would likely be easily detected by any monitoring system looking for unusual patterns. A few commenters note the cleverness of the technique from a theoretical perspective, while acknowledging its limited usefulness in practice. One commenter raises a concern about the potential abuse of such techniques for bypassing content filters or censorship.
Some websites display boxes instead of flag emojis in Chrome on Windows due to a font substitution issue. Windows uses its own Segoe UI Emoji font for most emoji, but defaults to a lower-quality bitmap font called "Segoe UI Symbol" specifically for flag emojis. This bitmap font lacks the necessary glyphs for many flag combinations, resulting in the missing emoji. Websites can force Chrome to use the correct, vector-based Segoe UI Emoji font by explicitly specifying it in their CSS, ensuring flags render properly.
Commenters on Hacker News largely discuss the technical details behind the issue, focusing on the surprising interaction between Chrome, Windows, and the specific way flags are rendered using two combined code points. Several point out the complexity and unexpected behaviors that arise from combining characters, particularly when dealing with different systems and fonts. Some users express frustration with the inconsistency and lack of clear documentation around emoji rendering. A few commenters offer potential workarounds or solutions, including using a fallback font or pre-rendering the flags as images. Others delve into the history and evolution of emoji standards and the challenges of maintaining compatibility across platforms. A compelling comment thread explores the tradeoffs between using the combined code points for flags versus using dedicated single code points, highlighting the performance implications and rendering complexities. Another interesting discussion revolves around the role of fonts and the challenges of designing fonts that support a rapidly expanding set of emojis.
Teemoji is a command-line tool that enhances the output of other command-line programs by replacing matching words with emojis. It works by reading standard input and looking up words in a configurable emoji mapping file. If a match is found, the word is replaced with the corresponding emoji in the output. Teemoji aims to add a touch of visual flair to otherwise plain text output, making it more engaging and potentially easier to parse at a glance. The tool is written in Go and can be easily installed and configured using a simple YAML configuration file.
HN users generally found the Teemoji project amusing and appreciated its lighthearted nature. Some found it genuinely useful for visualizing data streams in terminals, particularly for debugging or monitoring purposes. A few commenters pointed out potential issues, such as performance concerns with larger inputs and the limitations of emoji representation for complex data. Others suggested improvements, like adding color support beyond the inherent emoji colors or allowing custom emoji mappings. Overall, the reaction was positive, with many acknowledging its niche appeal and expressing interest in trying it out.
Shapecatcher is a web tool that helps you find Unicode characters by drawing their shape. You simply draw the character you're looking for in the provided canvas, and Shapecatcher analyzes your drawing and presents a list of matching or similar Unicode characters. This makes it easy to discover and insert obscure or forgotten symbols without having to know their name or code point.
Hacker News users praised Shapecatcher for its usefulness in finding obscure Unicode characters. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of successfully using the tool, highlighting its speed and accuracy. Some suggested improvements, like adding an option to refine the search by Unicode block or providing keyboard shortcuts. The discussion also touched upon the surprising breadth of the Unicode standard and the difficulty of navigating it without a tool like Shapecatcher. A few users mentioned alternative tools, such as searching directly within character map applications or using descriptive keywords in search engines, but the general consensus was that Shapecatcher provides a uniquely intuitive and efficient approach.
This post explores optimizing UTF-8 encoding by eliminating branches. The author demonstrates how bit manipulation and clever masking can be used to determine the correct number of bytes needed to represent a Unicode code point and to subsequently encode it into UTF-8, all without conditional branches. This branchless approach leverages the predictable structure of UTF-8 encoding and aims to improve performance by reducing branch mispredictions, which can be costly on modern CPUs. The author provides C++ code examples demonstrating both a naive branched implementation and the optimized branchless version. While acknowledging potential compiler optimizations, the post argues that explicit branchless code can offer more predictable performance characteristics across different compilers and architectures.
Hacker News users discussed the cleverness of the branchless UTF-8 encoding technique presented, with some expressing admiration for its conciseness and efficiency. Several commenters delved into the performance implications, debating whether the branchless approach truly offered benefits over branch-based methods in modern CPUs with advanced branch prediction. Some pointed out potential downsides, like increased code size and complexity, which could offset performance gains in certain scenarios. Others shared alternative implementations and optimizations, including using lookup tables. The discussion also touched upon the trade-offs between performance, code readability, and maintainability, with some advocating for simpler, more understandable code even at a slight performance cost. A few users questioned the practical relevance of optimizing UTF-8 encoding, suggesting it's rarely a bottleneck in real-world applications.
Ropey is a Rust library providing a "text rope" data structure optimized for efficient manipulation and editing of large UTF-8 encoded text. It represents text as a tree of smaller strings, enabling operations like insertion, deletion, and slicing to be performed in logarithmic time complexity rather than the linear time of traditional string representations. This makes Ropey particularly well-suited for applications dealing with large text documents, code editors, and other text-heavy tasks where performance is critical. It also provides convenient methods for indexing and iterating over grapheme clusters, ensuring correct handling of Unicode characters.
HN commenters generally praise Ropey's performance and design, particularly its handling of UTF-8 and its focus on efficient editing of large text files. Some compare it favorably to alternatives like String and ropes in other languages, noting Ropey's speed and lower memory footprint. A few users discuss its potential applications in text editors and IDEs, highlighting its suitability for tasks involving syntax highlighting and code completion. One commenter suggests improvements to the documentation, while another inquires about the potential for adding support for bidirectional text. Overall, the comments express appreciation for the library's functionality and its potential value for projects requiring performant text manipulation.
Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43667010
HN commenters discuss various aspects of Code Page 437. Some recall using it in early PC gaming and the limitations it imposed on game design. Others delve into the history of character sets and code pages, including the inclusion of box-drawing characters for creating UI elements in text-based environments. Several speculate about the specific inclusion of the "house" character (⌂), suggesting it might be a remnant of a planned but never implemented feature, potentially related to home banking or smart home technologies nascent at the time. A few commenters point out its resemblance to Japanese family crests (kamon) or stylized depictions of Shinto shrines. The impracticality of representing a real house address with a single character is also mentioned.
The Hacker News post "Why is there a “small house” in IBM's Code page 437?" has generated several comments exploring the rationale behind the inclusion of seemingly unusual characters in early character sets.
Several commenters delve into the practical constraints and design decisions of the era. One commenter highlights the limited space available in the 8-bit character encoding (256 characters), necessitating careful selection of included glyphs. They explain that the "house" character, along with others like card suits and music notes, likely stemmed from the need to represent common elements used in business and personal computing at the time. This is further corroborated by another comment mentioning early computer games and text-based interfaces, which could utilize these symbols for simple graphics. The house, in particular, is suggested to have been potentially useful for diagrams or simple representations of data hierarchies.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the influence of Teletext on character set design. A commenter notes the similarity between some Code Page 437 characters and those used in Teletext systems, which were popular in Europe at the time. This suggests a potential borrowing or cross-pollination of ideas between these systems. The limited graphical capabilities of early computer displays meant that these simple symbols provided a rudimentary way to convey visual information.
The idea of representing concrete objects is also discussed. One commenter speculates that the inclusion of concrete objects like the house symbolized the potential of computers to represent and interact with the real world, a concept quite forward-thinking for the time.
A few commenters share personal anecdotes about using these characters in early programming and text-based adventures, emphasizing their practical application in the pre-GUI era.
Finally, the discussion touches on the broader history of character encoding and the evolution from these simpler sets to the more complex and expansive Unicode standard. Commenters acknowledge the limitations of Code Page 437 and its contemporaries while appreciating their historical significance in the development of computing.