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

Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

opensource.christmas

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#81

Post by UserIsUnused »

tadzik_ wrote: post #25

Nay, nay, nay. I don't like text that looks differently for everyone depending on the platform they're on. Emojis have shown us already that vendors are willing to change their appearance depending on current trends or political climate. Gun becomes water gun, salad becomes vegan salad. One day, if caterpillar becomes a butterfly because of some mundane idea, is it still going to be instantly recognizable as a bug? W…

>We write code in formal languages rather than natural ones to stay away from ambiguity. Emojis are a straight downgrade.

I think this is the most important point of it all.

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#82

Post by savolai »

larusso wrote: post #14
amarshall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that a non-emoji based tagging scheme (e.g. “[bug]”, “[UI]”, etc.) would likely have the same effect (if there is any) that the author purports.

Plus the benefit of not being ambiguous like a lipstick emoji :)

The implications of comparing UX work with lipstick, in terms of the author's attitude.. don't get me started.

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#83

Post by daliusd »

LockAndLol wrote: post #77

That would require linux distros to distribute some kind of tool to display them properly and enter them easily in the CLI as well as IDEs. This is what it looks like to me: - [CLI]( http://i.imgur.com/XMcXwvi.png ) - [Pycharm]( http://i.imgur.com/HOXj2yg.png ) Even displaying that recycle emoji required me to install some font from a repo on github. Emojis seem to have very poor support on linux. If [this method]( h…

CLI: https://github.com/mrowa44/emojify

I don't use pycharm so I can't propose anything.

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#84

Post by [deleted] »

Aeolun wrote: post #69
WalterBright wrote: post #62

> With gitmoji others or your future self can simply look at the associated emoji and straightaway catch the intention. Just like a word does. > The [bug emoji] emoji is easily recognized as a bug by most people The word "bug" works for me. > but will [tulip emoji] immediately signalize that code is removed? Nope. Besides, we already have commonly used symbols for that, "+" for a line added and "-" for a line deleted…

> [tulip emoji] Is that what it looks like for you? For me it’s a flame (which seems to make more sense for removing code).

[deleted]

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#85

Post by have_faith »

LockAndLol wrote: post #77

That would require linux distros to distribute some kind of tool to display them properly and enter them easily in the CLI as well as IDEs. This is what it looks like to me: - [CLI]( http://i.imgur.com/XMcXwvi.png ) - [Pycharm]( http://i.imgur.com/HOXj2yg.png ) Even displaying that recycle emoji required me to install some font from a repo on github. Emojis seem to have very poor support on linux. If [this method]( h…

Apparently Ubuntu 18.04 introduced native emoji support through bundling Google's Noto Colour emoji font and an emoji picker ui built into Gnome. Looks very similar to MacOS's built in emoji picker that I'm used to.

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#86

Post by etiam »

arkh wrote: post #42

Nay. > A picture says more than words Because it relies on a lot of cultural background. Which in the world of emoji changes fast. This won't be welcoming of new users when they have to learn 10 or more symbols for whatever you're doing. :lipstick: for UI changes? Why? :computer: or :smartphone: as those are the usual interface used or ️:wheelchair: because you care about something accessible would feel better.

If we could have :pig: as well, we could at least do :lipstick::pig: for kludges on bad code...

I think you're right on the mark about the strong cultural context and arbitrariness of the symbols. The value I see in emoji for this sort of application (as others have also pointed out here) is for jokes and maybe (rarely) highlighting lines visually. Obviously the joke dies if the use gets standardized, and the practical disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#87

Post by epse »

DagAgren wrote: post #74
rahuldottech wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent chunk of programmers use GNU/Linux distros. Support is very lacking there.

"Programmers don't like this because Linux is shit" isn't a great argument against anything, really.

While you are right, I don't think calling something shit is the best way to point that out

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#88

Post by gitgud »

kfrzcode wrote: post #6

> Forces you to make smaller and more specific commits There's no forcing anyone to make smaller and specific commits. It may be used as a reminder, or tool, but certainly not going to prevent someone from committing junk behind whatever emoji they choose.

> Forces you to make smaller and more specific commits

This seemed like a negative point to me, I envisioned "smaller" commit messages purely of emoji's ..... :(

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#89

Post by zyx321 »

WalterBright wrote: post #62

> With gitmoji others or your future self can simply look at the associated emoji and straightaway catch the intention. Just like a word does. > The [bug emoji] emoji is easily recognized as a bug by most people The word "bug" works for me. > but will [tulip emoji] immediately signalize that code is removed? Nope. Besides, we already have commonly used symbols for that, "+" for a line added and "-" for a line deleted…

A caterpillar is not a bug. It is not institutionally recognizable as "bug" to me. A bug is a beetle or cockroach.

I strongly suspect it's related to my first language being German, which maps "bug" and "beetle" to the same word "Käfer".

Re: Gitmoji – Yay or Nay?

#90

Post by Lex-2008 »

larusso wrote: post #14
amarshall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that a non-emoji based tagging scheme (e.g. “[bug]”, “[UI]”, etc.) would likely have the same effect (if there is any) that the author purports.

Plus the benefit of not being ambiguous like a lipstick emoji :)

am I the only one who first (before reading the description) saw the lipstick emoji as an emergency vehicle beacon lighting?
Post reply on HN