Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terminal Support for Emoji

darrenburns.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#81

Post by khiqxj »

avgcorrection wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

[dead]

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#82

Post by terracottalite »

avgcorrection wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

I think the emoji combining isn't that useful, at least in the family example. It is enough putting them side by side without merging them. That way you have even more possible combinations, like a family of an ogre and a human and a kid.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#83

Post by 38 »

bazzargh wrote: post #25
38 wrote: post #7

works fine with Windows Terminal: http://0x0.st/H_S1.png but yes to be fair, the width on those ridiculous 5 codepoint emoji is off.

Is it windows or is it golang making the difference there? Golang's implementation of wcwidth is different, and a commonly used lib has an 'emoji' table which covers that bomb (1F4A3) https://github.com/mattn/go-runewidth/blob/master/runewidth_... The family emoji looks to have the wrong width, but it does resemble the behaviour supposed to be fixed by https://github.com/mattn/go-runewidth/pull/63 (see https://github…

I just used the standard library, not even any imports:

https://godocs.io/builtin#println

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#84

Post by zanellato19 »

prashnts wrote: post #70
kowlo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like them in GitHub release descriptions, e.g. those by Ghost CMS https://github.com/TryGhost/Ghost/releases/tag/v5.52.0

I find these a visual noise. What can be achieved with a subheading "Bug fixes", "Features" etc. is repeated in all lines.

Why the emojis are visual noise but "Bug Fix" wouldn't be?

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#85

Post by appplication »

Joker_vD wrote: post #16

Honestly, seems like the problem with wcwidth's implementations. Most of them have been reporting almost all emojis as having width 1 (and some very non-invisible symbols as having with 0) for years, to this very day, for some unexplained reason despite regular web rants of how this is wrong. Check out this one: [0]. It's 8 years old! The problems are still there. [0] https://eev.ee/blog/2015/09/12/dark-corners-of-un…

I cannot even begin to fathom how you would of about fixing this more broadly. I’m sure there are many who have come to count on the current behavior for some critical use case, and would vehemently oppose any attempts to change of correct. Hyrum’s law, etc.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#86

Post by Sesse__ »

3np wrote: post #72
Sesse__ wrote: post #18

I don't know of a single terminal that actually gets these ZWJ emoji sequences right. There are several terminals who will render them, but I haven't seen any actually get the width calculations correct. (E.g., https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/issues/3810 .) Part of the problem is that it really messes up the idea of a rectangular grid of base characters in memory, so you'll need some sort of indirection. Obviousl…

Have you checked mlterm? Its supported for other otherwise-neglected encodings and fonts is otherwise unparalleled AFAIK. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Mlterm

Yes, I've checked mlterm.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#90

Post by giraffe_lady »

pfp wrote: post #46
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Agreed. The whole emoji phenomenon is a kind of infantilizing cultural rot -- it makes serious, static documentation and tooling resemble a children's book and hinders live communication by encouraging vague single-pictogram messages and the expression of raw emotions (genuine or not) instead of mature and balanced thoughts.

None of these things are mutually exclusive the way you're implying. This is a "cultural degeneracy" argument, which are always suspect imo. You are certainly entitled to dislike the aesthetics of shifts in communication, but you're basically just assuming that the changes are inherently negative and there's no reason to think they are.

"Single-pictogram messages and expression of raw emotion" are simply not mutually exclusive with mature, well-considered, intentional communication.

Post reply on HN