| This is my personal experience, but for me, considering that the terminal is so frequently used, the small improvements add up over time. I found the font rendering more pleasant on the eyes. I'm not entirely sure why this is, and I'd be interested to see what options could be tweaked in iTerm2 to make it visually similar, but Hyper just "feels" nicer to look at for me. Second, I've found it useful to be able to customize my terminal with web technologies. Previously I used a custom prompt with lots of different bits of context (git status, node environment, python environment, Kubernetes context, etc). With Hyper it's been fairly easy for me to create a local plugin that renders a statusbar with those bits of context. It's built with React, CSS, etc, so personally the ability to easily adjust and create is super nice. Two things I miss from iTerm2 are infinite scrollback and the ability to search output with Command-F. I would assume there's a plugin out there to handle searching, I just haven't looked that far into it yet. Performance of Hyper 2 was adequate enough for me to switch. I'm interested to see how Hyper 3 compares. I'm also interested in iTerm2 3.3, which overhauls the iTerm2 UI. tl;dr - small customizations add up. It's basically the same migration as when I moved from Sublime Text to Atom (though I use VS Code now) |
iTerm2 blows hyper out of the water in those regards, and it actually does add up. Styling otherwise really isn't that difficult, but it begs the question of why do you need so much information? Are you actually developing or just spending time tinkering on your terminal to have bells and whistles that you don't actually even look at? Surely a simple colorscheme + font that aliases correctly should be enough to "feel nice" to look at?
The only thing keeping me from the better performance of alacritty is iterm2's infinite scrollback and some other miscellaneous features that alacritty will probably never get.