Most active commenters
  • account42(4)
  • oneeyedpigeon(3)

←back to thread

Can your terminal do emojis? How big?

(dgl.cx)
178 points dgl | 13 comments | 24 Jun 25 02:13 UTC | HN request time: 1.325s | source | bottom
Show context
p4cmanus3r ◴[24 Jun 25 07:10 UTC] No.44363591[source]▶
Back in my day... They didn't have emojis in terminals.
replies(4): >>44363604 #>>44363623 #>>44364114 #>>44364718 #
1. voidUpdate ◴[24 Jun 25 07:18 UTC] No.44363623[source]▶
When was your day? Emoticons have been used in terminals since 1982
replies(1): >>44363860 #
2. account42 ◴[24 Jun 25 08:02 UTC] No.44363860[source]▶
Emoticons are not the same as emojis. For one they allow for more expression or personal style by having different variants, e.g. :-) vs :) or for absolute maniacs: (:

They are also not limited to what some consortium and a couple of megacorporations think you should be able to express.

replies(3): >>44364130 #>>44367439 #>>44370944 #
3. oneeyedpigeon ◴[24 Jun 25 08:52 UTC] No.44364130[source]▶
They also lack semantics. There are downsides as well as up.
replies(3): >>44364181 #>>44364293 #>>44365216 #
4. account42 ◴[24 Jun 25 09:02 UTC] No.44364181{3}[source]▶
Usage rather than specifications determine semantics and due to the points in my previous post those often disagree for Unicode emojis.
replies(1): >>44364284 #
5. oneeyedpigeon ◴[24 Jun 25 09:23 UTC] No.44364284{4}[source]▶
I'm glad you recognise the value of usage when it comes to emoticons vs. emoji...
6. arccy ◴[24 Jun 25 09:25 UTC] No.44364293{3}[source]▶
emoji lack clear semantics too, consider the eggplant.
replies(1): >>44364506 #
7. oneeyedpigeon ◴[24 Jun 25 10:04 UTC] No.44364506{4}[source]▶
I think there's a difference. The code point will always mean "eggplant", it just happens that the concept can be interpreted in different ways according to context—just like the word itself. But ":-)" can only ever mean "colon minus rparens" before further interpretation.
replies(2): >>44364672 #>>44364677 #
8. skydhash ◴[24 Jun 25 10:34 UTC] No.44364672{5}[source]▶
What’s it called is syntax, what it’s means is always context dependent. That’s why we invented formal notation, so that we can have context free interpretation (it’s bundled with its semantic so you don’t need to apply some context to it)
9. account42 ◴[24 Jun 25 10:35 UTC] No.44364677{5}[source]▶
Actually, according to Unicode, "-" doesn't mean minus - U+002D is hyphen-minus.

And as for the eggplant, your semantics-as-specified are useless when 99.9% of the usage has a different intended meaning due to the inherent lack of expressiveness in a corporate-approved emoji language.

10. layer8 ◴[24 Jun 25 12:00 UTC] No.44365216{3}[source]▶
Emojis also severely lack semantics. They are specified in terms of what they should visually depict, not what they are supposed to mean.
11. thaumasiotes ◴[24 Jun 25 15:43 UTC] No.44367439[source]▶
> or for absolute maniacs: (:

To be fair, Unicode allows for that variant too: https://emojipedia.org/upside-down-face

12. jiggawatts ◴[24 Jun 25 20:55 UTC] No.44370944[source]▶
Agreed, but Unicode allows me to express the emotion that I most commonly feel when working in the IT industry: disapproval.

    ಠ_ಠ
replies(1): >>44374641 #
13. account42 ◴[25 Jun 25 07:44 UTC] No.44374641{3}[source]▶
Yes and that's still an emoticon made from creative use of pre-existing characters rather than an emoji specified in Unicode.