3 ms·

Propmpt-genned Rust shell is 13x the Ghostty size

8 points by ykurtov 5mo ago

I was one of the happy early Warp users. Hands down it was the best shell I ever used. Even the early preview was packed with useful dev-features more than any other shell I ever used. Two years after they pivoted to AI platform it's now 805mb. ``` 805M /Applications/Warp.app 62M /Applications/Ghostty.app ```

late_night_fix 5mo ago
Performance,startup time and memory usage matter more in terminal apps than almost anywhere else.That's why people react strongly to this.
- orf 5mo ago
  Why does the on-disk size matter for any of that?
  - skydhash 5mo ago
    More code to load from disk to memory, and while it may be fast, it’s not instantaneous.
    - orf 5mo ago
      SSDs can read at gigabytes per second, and only the used portions are paged into memory. Anything else?
      - skydhash 5mo ago
        Loading a program in memory is much more complicated than raw disk transfer speed.
        orf 5mo ago
        So you’re saying that if you append 1GB of junk data to the end of an executable it would be slower to execute? No? So it’s not purely a function of disk size.
  - ykurtov 5mo ago
    Because it will load into RAM. And RAM cost money. Also, quite hard to upgrade on the laptop
    - orf 5mo ago
      The entire executable isn’t loaded into RAM. And are laptops a primary deployment target?
flohofwoe 5mo ago
...and you could probably shave off 20 MB from Ghostty because it is distributed as universal binary (does that even make sense in 2026)? > ls -al ghostty total 81992 -rwxr-xr-x 1 floh staff 41979664 Mar 13 17:08 ghostty > file ghostty ghostty: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64] ghostty (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 ghostty (for architecture arm64): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 E.g. the complete app bundle is 62 MB, of that the executable is 40 MB, but that contains both ARM and x86 code.
- wpm 5mo ago
  Intel Macs are still going to be usable, viable computers for at least another 5 years. It will be a decade before they pass into the night of vintage computing enthusiasts like PowerPC Macs did.

8 points by ykurtov 5mo ago

late_night_fix 5mo ago

Performance,startup time and memory usage matter more in terminal apps than almost anywhere else.That's why people react strongly to this.

orf 5mo ago
Why does the on-disk size matter for any of that?
- skydhash 5mo ago
  More code to load from disk to memory, and while it may be fast, it’s not instantaneous.
  - orf 5mo ago
    SSDs can read at gigabytes per second, and only the used portions are paged into memory. Anything else?
    - skydhash 5mo ago
      Loading a program in memory is much more complicated than raw disk transfer speed.
      - orf 5mo ago
        So you’re saying that if you append 1GB of junk data to the end of an executable it would be slower to execute? No? So it’s not purely a function of disk size.
- ykurtov 5mo ago
  Because it will load into RAM. And RAM cost money. Also, quite hard to upgrade on the laptop
  - orf 5mo ago
    The entire executable isn’t loaded into RAM. And are laptops a primary deployment target?

flohofwoe 5mo ago

...and you could probably shave off 20 MB from Ghostty because it is distributed as universal binary (does that even make sense in 2026)? > ls -al ghostty total 81992 -rwxr-xr-x 1 floh staff 41979664 Mar 13 17:08 ghostty > file ghostty ghostty: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64] ghostty (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 ghostty (for architecture arm64): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 E.g. the complete app bundle is 62 MB, of that the executable is 40 MB, but that contains both ARM and x86 code.

wpm 5mo ago
Intel Macs are still going to be usable, viable computers for at least another 5 years. It will be a decade before they pass into the night of vintage computing enthusiasts like PowerPC Macs did.