←back to thread

Can your terminal do emojis? How big?

(dgl.cx)
178 points dgl | 10 comments | 24 Jun 25 02:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.006s | source | bottom
Show context
mmastrac ◴[24 Jun 25 04:28 UTC] No.44362863[source]▶
I'd be happy if we could get terminals to agree on how wide the warning triangle emoji renders. The emoji are certainly useful for scripts, but often widths are such a crapshoot. I cannot add width detection to every bash script I write for every emoji I want to use.

If only there was a standards body that could perhaps spec how these work in terminals.

replies(4): >>44362918 #>>44363071 #>>44363211 #>>44369636 #
a5c11 ◴[24 Jun 25 05:56 UTC] No.44363211[source]▶
Or you could just rely on the ordinary, fixed-width font available in every terminal? I mean, what do you need emojis for in a bash script?
replies(2): >>44363238 #>>44363336 #
1. kergonath ◴[24 Jun 25 06:22 UTC] No.44363336[source]▶
Emoji are good to highlight information. A red cross stands out in a list of green ticks much better than a [failed] among the [passed].
replies(2): >>44363431 #>>44366339 #
2. gapan ◴[24 Jun 25 06:40 UTC] No.44363431[source]▶
> Emoji are good to highlight information. A red cross stands out in a list of green ticks much better than a [failed] among the [passed].

Rendering [failed] in red and [passed] in green would achieve the same. It's not emoji vs text. It's color vs no color.

replies(3): >>44363812 #>>44364208 #>>44402995 #
3. tetha ◴[24 Jun 25 07:52 UTC] No.44363812[source]▶
And shapes, though you can get that with some ASCII art as well.

I've had a few scripts some time ago that took a long time to run, so I wanted a progress indicator I could see from across the room - that way I could play some guitar while monitoring the computer doing stuff in the evening.

Hence, the log messages got prefixed with tags like:

  >     ]
  >>    ] # normal progress
  /!\/!\] # it had to engage in a workaround
    x_x ] # if it had to stop.
4. kergonath ◴[24 Jun 25 09:09 UTC] No.44364208[source]▶
> Rendering [failed] in red and [passed] in green would achieve the same. It's not emoji vs text. It's color vs no color.

True, but my prompt is full of colour ASCII characters so emoji stand out. And also, emoji fare better than escape codes when they pass through pipes and stuff.

replies(1): >>44367477 #
5. kps ◴[24 Jun 25 13:58 UTC] No.44366339[source]▶
And then I have to guess which unicode cross this particular tool picked so I can search for it in log.
replies(1): >>44369082 #
6. thaumasiotes ◴[24 Jun 25 15:46 UTC] No.44367477{3}[source]▶
> True, but my prompt is full of colour ASCII characters so emoji stand out.

Huh? How often does your prompt appear inside the output you're reading?

replies(1): >>44369076 #
7. kergonath ◴[24 Jun 25 18:15 UTC] No.44369076{4}[source]▶
Every time I grep something. True, it’s not a major issue, but we are talking about preferences here.
8. kergonath ◴[24 Jun 25 18:16 UTC] No.44369082[source]▶
Emojis are for me. The grep-able stuff comes afterwards, in ASCII.
replies(1): >>44402997 #
9. noisy_boy ◴[28 Jun 25 08:00 UTC] No.44402995[source]▶
> Rendering [failed] in red and [passed] in green would achieve the same. It's not emoji vs text. It's color vs no color.

Thats only true for the terminal. When the same output is saved to a file or viewed via a non-terminal interface, the colors won't always be retained but the text/icons will be. E.g. in Jenkins console logs, you need to enable ASCII coloring explicitly to be able to see colored text.

10. noisy_boy ◴[28 Jun 25 08:00 UTC] No.44402997{3}[source]▶
Doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive - with log format including log level, you can get the best of both worlds.