8 ms·

https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/keyboard-protocol.html https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/keyboard-protocol.html https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/graphics-protocol

https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/keyboard-protocol.html https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/keyboard-protocol.html https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/graphics-protocol.html https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/graphics-protocol.html

alpaca128 6y ago
Looks great, the only gripe I have with Kitty is how slow it is, especially on startup. I guess mostly because the combination of Python and tons of features has a negative effect in this area. In fact that was the only reason I switched away from it despite its great font ligature support; I use terminals a lot and so the constant delay when opening a new window was a bit much. However I like those modernised protocols and it would be neat to have widespread support for it.
- aumerle 6y ago
  kitty startup time was slow because of a bug in GLFW, fixed a while ago. And you can have its startup time be 0 with --single-instance.
  - bsdubernerd 6y ago
    It's still an order of magnitude slower during startup than other terminals such as xterm, rxvt or even mlterm. On my intel laptop I can often see the gl context flashing before becoming the final background color, which is annoying. Requires also way more ram. kitty is a great terminal, but it's one example of fast not being also lightweight.
    - aumerle 6y ago
      time kitty -1 false real 0.098 user 0.080 sys 0.017 maxmem 23 MB faults 0 time xterm false real 0.052 user 0.035 sys 0.000 maxmem 9 MB faults 1 Doesnt look like an order of magnitude to me.
      - bsdubernerd 6y ago
        xterm false 0.06s user 0.01s system 81% cpu 8Mb mem 0.090 total mlterm -e false 0.08s user 0.02s system 84% cpu 13Mb mem 0.125 total kitty -1 false 0.22s user 0.05s system 93% cpu 78Mb mem 0.290 total (and yes, there's a kitty instance running already..)
    - aumerle 6y ago
      I cant reply to your other post, so: you need to run the other kitty instance also with -1. If you do that, you will get the same numbers I got.
      - bsdubernerd 6y ago
        I know, I'm actually using kitty regularly.
  - alpaca128 6y ago
    Using the latest kitty release 0.19.3 vs. st, both already loaded: ~ >=> time st ls real 0m0.048s user 0m0.041s sys 0m0.008s ~ >=> time kitty ls real 0m0.239s user 0m0.173s sys 0m0.059s If kitty isn't nicely cached it takes over 500ms on my machine. Using your suggested flag it still takes twice as long.
    - aumerle 6y ago
      You need to run kitty -1 to start kitty and leave it running. Then all future kitty -1 invocations will open new windows instantaneously.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        I use kitty. "time kitty -1 true" takes about 180ms on my machine. That's more than fast enough for me, but certainly slower than many other terminals.
- enriquto 6y ago
  This! I would love a "purified" version of kitty which is just an xterm with font ligatures. And no silly features like underlining of links, etc. Also, an option to display bold text by using brighter colors (as God intended).

alpaca128 6y ago

Looks great, the only gripe I have with Kitty is how slow it is, especially on startup. I guess mostly because the combination of Python and tons of features has a negative effect in this area. In fact that was the only reason I switched away from it despite its great font ligature support; I use terminals a lot and so the constant delay when opening a new window was a bit much. However I like those modernised protocols and it would be neat to have widespread support for it.

aumerle 6y ago
kitty startup time was slow because of a bug in GLFW, fixed a while ago. And you can have its startup time be 0 with --single-instance.
- bsdubernerd 6y ago
  It's still an order of magnitude slower during startup than other terminals such as xterm, rxvt or even mlterm. On my intel laptop I can often see the gl context flashing before becoming the final background color, which is annoying. Requires also way more ram. kitty is a great terminal, but it's one example of fast not being also lightweight.
  - aumerle 6y ago
    time kitty -1 false real 0.098 user 0.080 sys 0.017 maxmem 23 MB faults 0 time xterm false real 0.052 user 0.035 sys 0.000 maxmem 9 MB faults 1 Doesnt look like an order of magnitude to me.
    - bsdubernerd 6y ago
      xterm false 0.06s user 0.01s system 81% cpu 8Mb mem 0.090 total mlterm -e false 0.08s user 0.02s system 84% cpu 13Mb mem 0.125 total kitty -1 false 0.22s user 0.05s system 93% cpu 78Mb mem 0.290 total (and yes, there's a kitty instance running already..)
  - aumerle 6y ago
    I cant reply to your other post, so: you need to run the other kitty instance also with -1. If you do that, you will get the same numbers I got.
    - bsdubernerd 6y ago
      I know, I'm actually using kitty regularly.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  Using the latest kitty release 0.19.3 vs. st, both already loaded: ~ >=> time st ls real 0m0.048s user 0m0.041s sys 0m0.008s ~ >=> time kitty ls real 0m0.239s user 0m0.173s sys 0m0.059s If kitty isn't nicely cached it takes over 500ms on my machine. Using your suggested flag it still takes twice as long.
  - aumerle 6y ago
    You need to run kitty -1 to start kitty and leave it running. Then all future kitty -1 invocations will open new windows instantaneously.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      I use kitty. "time kitty -1 true" takes about 180ms on my machine. That's more than fast enough for me, but certainly slower than many other terminals.
enriquto 6y ago
This! I would love a "purified" version of kitty which is just an xterm with font ligatures. And no silly features like underlining of links, etc. Also, an option to display bold text by using brighter colors (as God intended).