Use `bold` by default on Windows about chalk HOT 14 CLOSED

If I were using this library though, and would work on windows (slim chance 😉), I would be surprised that Chalk.blue does not correspond to the 'standard' blue styling. Especially considering 1200+ modules depend on Chalk, some of which are libraries themselves, an unpredictable api is a bad thing. Chalk.blue transparently becoming Chalk.blue.bold is not something you'd expect looking at the api.

On the other hand, if we add a note in the readme.md, then I guess you're right it couldn't do too much harm. It's not a problem I've experienced, but if you think it makes unhappy windows users slightly happier, go for it 👍

from chalk.

meaning when you do chalk.blue the result would actually be chalk.bold.blue? It's a good thought since windows terminal visually sucks, but nah, I'd leave it as-is. It's easy enough for implementors to use bold if they want. thanks for asking!

from chalk.

@jonschlinkert The point is that implementors shouldn't have to care whether it's going to be used on Windows. Forcing them to care is a leaky abstraction. It's actually leaks in Windows, but can't really fix that mess. I'm just tired of being trolled on so many repos for using blue.

from chalk.

I really wouldn't start making platform-specific exceptions. Can't windows users change their default color palette if they're unhappy with the provided blue?

from chalk.

I really wouldn't start making platform-specific exceptions.

Why? We already do it for so much: https://github.com/search?l=javascript&nwo=sindresorhus%2Flog-symbols&q=process.platform+%3D%3D%3D+%27win32%27&ref=cmdform&search_target=global&type=Code

Can't windows users change their default color palette if their unhappy with the provided blue?

I tried that argument. Nobody does...

I don't see the downside though. The result is that anyone using chalk and blue gets less Windows trolling.

from chalk.

Can't windows users change their default color palette if their unhappy with the provided blue?

I tried that argument. Nobody does...

It is not actually possible on most cmd.exe and powershell

from chalk.

@SBoudrias fair enough. That's a valid argument to the make the default blue the prettiest blue that windows does offer.

Is there actually a remotely sane technical reason these terminal emulators don't allow for a variable palette?

from chalk.

I would favor opting for a bolded blue or more clear tone of blue for Windows users given the limitations outlined above.

from chalk.

@addyosmani changing the tone of blue is not an option, the available colors are the 16 listed here.

The fact that this page talks about 8 base colors and 8 dark tints is telling though. So I guess defaulting blue to bold/bright blue is indeed a good choice @sindresorhus

from chalk.

after reading others' comments, I think defaulting to bold blue is probably good choice, as long as it doesn't alter the visual balance in my collection of windows ansii rainbow art ;P

from chalk.

@sindresorhus any progress on this?

from chalk.

@jbnicolai No, I haven't had a chance to do this yet. Feel free. Otherwise I'll probably get to it next week ;)

from chalk.

My 2¢: The readme says:

Chalk does not support support anything other than the base eight colors, which guarantees it will work on all terminals and systems.

So it depends on what you mean by “work”. Does a barely visible blue “work”?

from chalk.

@lydell cmd.exe is far from an actual terminal/system, but that's irrelevant as we already decided to fix this.

Does a barely visible blue “work”?

Apparently Microsoft thought so.

from chalk.