[Self-Perfection]

One of the selling points of this post is that bash is slow to start. But how fast is bun shell? Have anyone compared bash and bun shell start times?

[cerved]

An absolutely ludicrous point, shells have some of the fastest startup times of all processes

[shzhdbi09gv8ioi]

If you are mindful and optimize your shell config, yea.

But common stuff like zsh with oh-my-zsh is known to be rather slow, as in several hundred millisec to start.

Depending on you, of course, that might be considered fast. I consider it insanely slow.

My shell of preference, "nushell":

> Startup Time: 24ms 448µs 147ns

Ideally it would launch in < 16ms (1 frame at 60hz), but I can live with this ;-)

[cerved]

Why would you need to optimize the config? I'm not talking about running an interactive shell.

[shzhdbi09gv8ioi]

You commented on someone mentioning bash being slow to start.

So your parent discussed interactive shell, and I assumed you did, since you didn't state otherwise.

[cerved]

They were quoting the article, which complains that "shells are too slow to start", with examples of running echo in non-interactive shells.

Nobody is talking about the startup time of interactive shells.

[billywhizz]

on my crappy old i5 dell laptop running ubuntu 22.04 i see ~1.5ms for bash and ~1ms for sh. i dunno where these really bad numbers are coming from tbh.

[vojvod]

They're not claiming bun is faster to start, only that for use cases where you might otherwise need to shell out hundreds of times bun only needs to start once.