![]() "Why not just" = lack of experience in the domainįrom my experience, the usual reasons are: unwillingness from tool author to accept PRs, tool is unmaintained/abandoned, tool forces color across a non-TTY in child processes calling other tools inside of itself, "ain't nobody got time to patch hundreds of random tools that are downstream of some popular colorization library", etc. > Why not just fix them to handle non-colorization in non-TTY context correctly There's certainly ways to implement this that minimize impact, but it's still a non-zero up-front and ongoing maintenance/testing cost. ![]() individual preferences are like opinions and everyone is entitled to their own - but this imposes work on every developer/application. Can someone with this opinion explain their rationale? I respect others like no color (and there's already a solution per that, above), but I don't quite get the desire to have just some color (prompts but not applications). I personally like colorized output, and I can't even think of situations where the colors chosen by a developer were so bad I wanted to disable them completely. NO_COLOR is a hint to the software running in the terminal to suppress addition of color, not to the terminal to prevent any color from being shown. > The terminal is capable of color and should be able to print color when instructed. Why not just set $TERM to dumb or xterm without color support? Or change all color definitions in the terminal to print the same color?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |