You must log in or register to comment.
Has features ✅
Damn. Alacritty has no features?
What do the exclamation points mean?
✅ but I can’t give the competitors too many ✅ so let’s go with ⚠️
Yeah, I’d say Kitty and Alacritty work pretty well on Linux. Makes this comparison table seem like bs
That the guy making the table is pulling things out of their arse, basically.
They explain it a bit here: https://mitchellh.com/writing/ghostty-and-useful-zig-patterns
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).
So nothing wrong with Kitty on MacOS e.g., but the “feel” is not native. Personally don’t care too much about that, but the author seems to do.
This smells like bullshit because it’s just based on things users do not see (processes) or do not care about (the style used for your tabs).
https://mitchellh.com/writing/ghostty-is-coming
It was discussed in details in his presentation (the link is in the article).
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
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.
