3 ms·
Notably this article was written based on Windows Terminal 1.18. That was before WT 1.22, which included this PR: [^1] which roughly doubled the terminal's thro
by zadjii 11mo ago
Notably this article was written based on Windows Terminal 1.18. That was before WT 1.22, which included this PR: [^1] which roughly doubled the terminal's throughput. That combined with a couple of other PRs in 1.22 made some scenarios up to _16x_ faster[^2]
[^1]: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/17510 https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/17510
[^2]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-terminal-preview-1-22-release/#new-hosting-subsystem https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-terminal-...
- zamadatix 11mo agoThanks for the work on WT, it was really a massive step up I did not expect after all of these years.
- zadjii 11mo agoYou're most welcome! Working on it to help serve the whole developer ecosystem has been the delight of my career :)
- typpilol 11mo agoJust want to say built in glyphs makes terminal ANSI art awesome. I forked a colorscripts project and added some true ANSI art after conversion and the built in glyphs look so much better than any other font. It's great but is there any special rendering for the built in glyphs that's not possible with fonts? Just curious