News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“I'm basically giving myself a permanent vacation from be... by tialaramex on Thursday July 12, 2018 @02:43PM (#17517444)
Implicitly converting strings into bytes or vice versa means now all your APIs grow an exception "Invalid encoding" / "Can't encode this" / "Can't decode this" / etcetera that you need to deal with.

Making people actually do the conversion has the advantage that when writing their string conversion code they might actually do something with the exception beyond maybe logging it and then pressing on anyway. It also gives you the opportunity to explicitly offer them alternatives like treating everything we can't encode as some sort of replacement character (works well for Unicode, not so much for ASCII), which is way too much to ask of every single function that takes bytes.

Re:“I'm basically giving myself a permanent vacation from be... by jessaustin on Thursday July 12, 2018 @03:42PM (#17517968)
...which is way too much to ask of every single function that takes bytes.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant to suggest that the byte-functions wouldn't know or do anything about encodings. They just work with bytes. It's the other functions, that take the encoding-annotated bytes (or optionally a "pure" unicode type), that would care about encodings.