|
|
|
|
|
by HaoZeke
741 days ago
|
|
btop might be measuring the wrong thing here, but alacritty on my box shows 93M using the same interface. I remember benchmarking foot and alacritty (also kitty) pretty extensively a few years ago, and settled on foot. Though of course, the memory usage on modern machines is really not a major issue, but the configuration update, along with the tmux session death was annoying.. EDIT: Some timing metrics.. foot -s &
hyperfine --warmup 8 'alacritty -e true' 'foot -e true' 'footclient -e true'
Benchmark 1: alacritty -e true
Time (mean ± σ): 99.0 ms ± 14.2 ms [User: 58.5 ms, System: 33.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 82.7 ms … 148.3 ms 32 runs
Benchmark 2: foot -e true
Time (mean ± σ): 37.2 ms ± 2.3 ms [User: 40.3 ms, System: 9.5 ms]
Range (min … max): 33.8 ms … 43.7 ms 83 runs
Benchmark 3: footclient -e true
Time (mean ± σ): 22.8 ms ± 4.3 ms [User: 0.9 ms, System: 0.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 18.2 ms … 63.6 ms 133 runs
Summary
footclient -e true ran
1.63 ± 0.32 times faster than foot -e true
4.35 ± 1.03 times faster than alacritty -e true
|
|
In client server mode all of foot/alacritty/kitty/urxvt will open windows in a few ms.