←back to thread

Can your terminal do emojis? How big?

(dgl.cx)
178 points dgl | 1 comments | 24 Jun 25 02:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
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 #
gapan ◴[24 Jun 25 06:40 UTC] No.44363431{3}[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 #
1. tetha ◴[24 Jun 25 07:52 UTC] No.44363812{4}[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.