3 ms·
That depends on the modules you use. For example, many people keep each function in a separate file, instead of merging them into psm1 during build. That will
by majkinetor 4y ago
That depends on the modules you use.
For example, many people keep each function in a separate file, instead of merging them into psm1 during build. That will speed it up A LOT.
You can have different profiles and load them when you need them, even when you enter specific folder.
There are ways around it. You complain that you want everything everything everything loaded in advance for your wizardry but are u really a wizard if you can't solve this? So if you buy a porche and then put a house on top of it, shop in cart in the back of it, tires for every season, and so on, and then complain its slow, then guess what...
- pxc 4y agoUh, let's back up. > Pwsh starts on my machine in 400-500ms. Far slower than I'd like. That is with no profile. This is already 10x slower than a reasonable shell startup time, with no profile configuration at all, on an extremely fast desktop system. It's downright embarrassing that you are even attempting to defend this state of affairs.
- majkinetor 4y agoYour shell is not comparable to pwsh, because pwsh contains everything under the universe already there, while in typical shell, you need to install 3rd party tools, and then load them as you use them. I don't feel embarrased at all, while you should be, by comparing apples and oranges.
- pxc 4y agoPowerShell's slowness doesn't have anything to do with its feature completeness, though, nor the capabilities of the language itself. Many new shells inspired by PowerShell's structured pipelines and built-in coreutils replacements share both of those features with it, but not its abominable slowness.