Only says it’s fast on some specific benchmarks against alacrity. Not talking about why alacrity or kitty would not work on Linux/mac while ghostty does.
Sure, it’s interesting that he managed to optimize so many things. But the claims in the picture are unproven.
Agree on the misleading table. To make it worse, OP didn’t include the Mitchell’s article link.
Table alone does not paint the complete picture (and marking Alacritty has no features is too absurd). Alacritty lacks features but exclamation would be better suited (instead of cross).
https://mitchellh.com/writing/ghostty-is-coming
It was discussed in details in his presentation (the link is in the article).
Kitty is mentioned once in the article and that’s it. Doesn’t even mention its downside and how ghostty is so much better according to them.
It’s a great project and all, but I’d love if people could stop stomping on others work just to appear better.
Mitchell’s talk has some proof
https://youtu.be/cPaGkEesw20?t=3021&si=ppZK2tbGktJah9cN
Only says it’s fast on some specific benchmarks against alacrity. Not talking about why alacrity or kitty would not work on Linux/mac while ghostty does.
Sure, it’s interesting that he managed to optimize so many things. But the claims in the picture are unproven.
Does the picture/article claim alacritty or kitty would not work on Linux/mac? Where can I read that?
It’s the misleading exclamation mark. If I see this picture, my impression is that kitty works only with issues on Linux
Also, what does « features » mean? Why does alacrity have none?
Agree on the misleading table. To make it worse, OP didn’t include the Mitchell’s article link.
Table alone does not paint the complete picture (and marking Alacritty has no features is too absurd). Alacritty lacks features but exclamation would be better suited (instead of cross).
Some of the features Alacritty does not have