One of the major difficulties with Unicode handling is not just that there are poor implementations out there with legacy baggage, but a lot of poor advice as well (or well-meaning advice that
seems correct, but misses some corner case or some language). For example, this article wants to count "graphemes", and the author goes through three versions of an algorithm to account for surrogate pairs and various combining marks. All seems well in the test cases the author shows, but combining marks are only one class of codepoints that can join to form a grapheme, and the algorithm will fail for other grapheme clusters such as 'நி' (Tamil letter NA + Tamil Vowel Sign I), or Hangul made of conjoining Jamo (such as '깍': 'ᄁ' + 'ᅡ' + 'ᆨ'), or other control characters.
Luckily, the Unicode Technical Committee has figured this out for you, and UAX#29 provides an algorithm for determining grapheme cluster boundaries [1]. Yes, it's long and technical, it has many cases (and exceptions) to handle, and it can't be expressed compactly in two lines of JavaScript; but it will give you a well-defined and understood answer for all scripts in Unicode.
[1] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_Bounda...
Luckily, the Unicode Technical Committee has figured this out for you, and UAX#29 provides an algorithm for determining grapheme cluster boundaries [1]. Yes, it's long and technical, it has many cases (and exceptions) to handle, and it can't be expressed compactly in two lines of JavaScript; but it will give you a well-defined and understood answer for all scripts in Unicode.
[1] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_Bounda...