[fullstop]

I hadn't used Zellij before, but I tried it out. Visually it works better than tmux and it shares enough key bindings with tmux to make it a pretty seamless transition.

With that being said, the binary is huge. I get that zellij is statically linked, but tmux is about 900KiB and has minimal dependencies. I'm flabbergasted that a terminal multiplexer, stripped, is 38MiB.

[spookie]

Looking at the source code I assume it's just the amount of cargo deps. Some of which I'm not sure what place they have on a tmux at a first glance.

[fullstop]

Hopefully some effort is eventually put into slimming things down.

[kstrauser]

True, but zellij also does more. I'd also give it more of a stink eye if it were something I were running many times inside the inner loop of a script, but as something you generally launch once and leave running forever, eh.

I occasionally have to recalibrate my units. I just launched Emacs on my Mac and it's using 350MB of RAM. That's astonishing when I think about Amiga programs I wrote, but it's also just 0.53% of the RAM in this particularly machine. It's probably larger than it could be if someone ruthlessly trimmed it back, but I'd rather spend that time using the other 99.4% of my machine to do more fun stuff.

[fullstop]

I have a few embedded devices which have just 128MiB of flash, and they can run tmux just fine. I wouldn't even consider zellij for this purpose, of course, and having tmux down there is more of a "this is a nice thing for development purposes" thing.

Regarding memory usage, Zellij appears to take up 63 MiB versus tmux's 3.8MiB. It's nice and all, but quite a pig. This is on Linux, maybe Mac is different.

[kstrauser]

Embedded is a lot different, to be sure. I'm surprised there's room for tmux on something that tiny.

But on desktop systems, on my Mac, Zellij takes 28MB of disk and 40MB of RAM. That's 1/37,000th of my available disk and 1/1,600th of my RAM. I'm all for optimized, tiny apps, but those are below my attention threshold.

[fc417fc802]

> I'm surprised there's room for tmux on something that tiny.

A question that comes to mind is, under what circumstances would you expect a TUI based program that processes streaming text not to fit on a system that is otherwise capable of user interaction? It seems vaguely in the vicinity of the simplest possible interactive task you could come up with.

Certainly it generally isn't worth hyper-optimizing mainstream desktop applications to wring out the last few MB, let alone KB, of RAM in this day and age. However that doesn't answer the question - why would more than 1 MB of program binary be required for multiplexing text in a terminal? At least at first glance it honestly seems a bit outlandish.

[int_19h]

Note that "embedded" like this includes e.g. many modern routers.

Also note that computers with much less disk space than 128 Mb could and did run full-fledged GUI apps in the past. For example, the entirety of Windows 95 is ~100 Mb when installed.

[fullstop]

The product uses libevent and libc already, so adding tmux only consumes a few hundred KiB in the image. The root filesystem is squashfs, so it's even less in practice.