3 ms·
Considering its simplicity, I wonder why st fared so poorly. Also, I’m surprised that eshell did well on the latency part, since it sometimes feels laggy (which
by snazz 8y ago
Considering its simplicity, I wonder why st fared so poorly. Also, I’m surprised that eshell did well on the latency part, since it sometimes feels laggy (which could be due to its reimplementation of basic Unix tools in elisp).
- data_block 8y agoIt's quite fast when you are not on macOS :^)
- bitwize 8y agoEeeeeuuugghh... desktop Linux.
- yellowapple 8y agoThe feeling is mutual, I'm sure.
- jcelerier 8y ago> Considering its simplicity, I wonder why st fared so poorly. I don't understand why in earth you would expect simple solutions to be fast. Most very fast software need some level of complexity in order to special-case for the fast platform primitives. See for instance glibc which is not simple when compared to musl but also rolls over it in benchmarks, because it uses many state of the art algorithms and many architecture-specific optimizations.
- tngranados 8y agoI think he means that st is simple regarding its features not its implementation (which I know nothing about).
- WalterGR 8y agoI don't understand why in earth you would expect That’s unnecessarily aggressive.
- mruts 8y agoI find complexity more correlated with performance than simplicity. I am also very surprised at the eshell performance, how on earth is it faster than most terminals written in C? Elisp is the slowest language ever.
- sprash 8y agoFrom the comments of the corresponding LWN article (https://lwn.net/Articles/751763/ https://lwn.net/Articles/751763/): You can easily get st down to 5-7ms latency by tuning the fps settings in config.h. Also the shell running inside it makes quite a difference