this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
-42 points (21.6% liked)
Programming
17666 readers
361 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kitty is mentioned once in the article and that’s it. Doesn’t even mention its downside and how ghostty is so much better according to them.
It’s a great project and all, but I’d love if people could stop stomping on others work just to appear better.
Mitchell's talk has some proof
https://youtu.be/cPaGkEesw20?t=3021&si=ppZK2tbGktJah9cN
Only says it’s fast on some specific benchmarks against alacrity. Not talking about why alacrity or kitty would not work on Linux/mac while ghostty does.
Sure, it’s interesting that he managed to optimize so many things. But the claims in the picture are unproven.
Does the picture/article claim alacritty or kitty would not work on Linux/mac? Where can I read that?
It's the misleading exclamation mark. If I see this picture, my impression is that kitty works only with issues on Linux
Also, what does « features » mean? Why does alacrity have none?
Agree on the misleading table. To make it worse, OP didn't include the Mitchell's article link.
Table alone does not paint the complete picture (and marking Alacritty has no features is too absurd). Alacritty lacks features but exclamation would be better suited (instead of cross).
Some of the features Alacritty does not have