- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
On my machine, neovim is visibly faster on uxterm over alacritty, another gpu-accelerated terminal emulator, so I’m not going to bother trying ghostty. Also, I don’t have gtk4 on my computer now. I don’t see the need to install it just for a terminal emulator. In addition to xterm, I also have xfce4-terminal (included with the Xfce desktop environment I’ve been using since Gnome 2 went away) for when I want font-fallback support or a drop-down terminal.
What does it do that kitty doesn’t?
According to this this slideshow:
At a fundamental level, this is the state of terminal emulators today as I saw it. You have fast terminals, feature rich terminals, and native terminals. You can pick at most two properties to have.
Ghostty aims for – and in my opinion already achieves – all properties.
Also, calling out the warning signs, my bar for a native platform experience is that the app feels and acts like a purpose-built native app. I don’t think this bar is unreasonable. For example, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that Alacritty is kind of not native because new windows create new processes. Or that Kitty is kind of not native because tabs use a non-native widget. And so on (there are many more examples for each).
Okay sounds like nothing other than being “more native” than Kitty, but they will add more fearures later. I’m not convinced to switch, but I’m interested what Ghostty does in the future.