5 ms·

cmuratori is great software engineer, for sure, but, god, this bug report poisons the well right from the start (see below). Also the report is actually quite

by galkk 5y ago

cmuratori is great software engineer, for sure, but, god, this bug report poisons the well right from the start (see below). Also the report is actually quite bad, because 40x performance drop, that is stated, could be actually nothing. If something takes 1 millisecond instead of 25 microseconds (numbers from the head, to illustrate the point), it might be an issue, but also might mean nothing. This is the thing that requires clarification, from my pov. Regarding poisoning the well: instead of writing " Expected Behavior Despite the increased parsing load, modern CPUs should not have a problem parsing per-character color escape codes quickly. I would expect the performance of the terminal to be able to sustain roughly the same frame rate with per-character color codes as without, and if there was a performance drop, I wouldn't expect it to be anything close to 40x. " he could just write Expected behavior Frame rate of output with per-char color codes is similar to non-colored output.

yobbo 5y ago
> Expected Behavior Whether this is interpreted as unfriendly depends on the stance of the reader. I can easily make this sound somewhere between "celebratory" or "intriguing" when I read it. If I were the author and performance/bug-reports somehow meant negative consequences for me, then it would sound hostile.
mwcampbell 5y ago
> 40x performance drop that is stated could be actually nothing. It isn't though. The performance difference between Windows Terminal and refterm is dramatic enough that he could demonstrate it in a video.
- galkk 5y ago
  And that is why I'm saying that initial bug report could be done better. For example, out of curiosity I did the test from the last message: doing "cat big.txt" in WSL2. In Windows terminal it took 1.5s, but in Kitty terminal, that is running under wslg (same ubuntu version), it takes 0.34s. Powershell, from the other side, is awful (20-25s).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tuananh 5y ago
i find the expected behavior paragraph perfectly fine.
gonzus 5y ago
I personally disagree. I don't see any poisoning in the original bug report; furthermore, I think it conveys the issue (and some of its subtleties, such as referencing "modern CPUs") much more clearly than the version you propose.
j_barbossa 5y ago
Agree, pretty unfriendly tone. I would expect from a more senior developer that he or she has a high enough social intelligence to understand how to confront others with their findings in a clear but friendly way.

by galkk 5y ago

yobbo 5y ago

> Expected Behavior Whether this is interpreted as unfriendly depends on the stance of the reader. I can easily make this sound somewhere between "celebratory" or "intriguing" when I read it. If I were the author and performance/bug-reports somehow meant negative consequences for me, then it would sound hostile.

mwcampbell 5y ago

> 40x performance drop that is stated could be actually nothing. It isn't though. The performance difference between Windows Terminal and refterm is dramatic enough that he could demonstrate it in a video.

galkk 5y ago
And that is why I'm saying that initial bug report could be done better. For example, out of curiosity I did the test from the last message: doing "cat big.txt" in WSL2. In Windows terminal it took 1.5s, but in Kitty terminal, that is running under wslg (same ubuntu version), it takes 0.34s. Powershell, from the other side, is awful (20-25s).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tuananh 5y ago

i find the expected behavior paragraph perfectly fine.

gonzus 5y ago

I personally disagree. I don't see any poisoning in the original bug report; furthermore, I think it conveys the issue (and some of its subtleties, such as referencing "modern CPUs") much more clearly than the version you propose.

j_barbossa 5y ago

Agree, pretty unfriendly tone. I would expect from a more senior developer that he or she has a high enough social intelligence to understand how to confront others with their findings in a clear but friendly way.