i'm not saying "suckless all the things!" these people have made my daily life easier, though.
i'm not saying "suckless all the things!" these people have made my daily life easier, though.
ST is fast (as expected)
$ time $(for i in `seq 1 100`; do st -e true &> /dev/null ; done)
real 0m5.493s
user 0m4.417s
sys 0m0.647s
URxvt is a little slower (but traditional wisdom should tell you that if it is actually so small that you need to measure it to perceive the difference, the difference probably doesn't matter) $ time $(for i in `seq 1 100`; do urxvt -e true &> /dev/null ; done)
real 0m11.099s
user 0m9.780s
sys 0m0.853s
URxvt client (with a separately launched urxvtd) is faster than st. $ time $(for i in `seq 1 100`; do urxvtc -e true &> /dev/null ; done)
real 0m4.593s
user 0m0.007s
sys 0m0.017s
Given how solid urxvt has been for me over the years, and given that I run urxvtc already, I don't see why switching to st would help (the argument against featuritis can obviously be made, but urxvt is fairly minimal as well).Note: I do not know how it would affect it, but I also have a .Xdefaults that sets fonts, colors etc for URxvt.
Edit:
adding xterm to the comparison since some sibling comment mentioned it
$ time $(for i in `seq 1 100`; do xterm -e true &> /dev/null ; done)
real 0m8.525s
user 0m2.777s
sys 0m0.770sWhat I was talking about were things like how much memory overhead the emulator has and how fast it paints stuff or how quickly it responds. Some things were slower in urxvt and then some things didn't work as correctly as in xterm, so I didn't bother configuring urxvt for more speed. st, on the other hand, wasn't faster and actually was heavier memory-wise when I tried it the last time.
kinda-sorta...
http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad-contrib/XMonad-Prompt-A...
doesn't do exactly what i want... i'm looking for something more like this
, except the completions list and tab stuff don't work
aaand, i have to get back to "web" technologies :)
You can give it something else than defaultXPConfig to customize the look and completion behavior: http://xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmonad-contrib/XMonad-Prompt.h...
Setting:
searchPredicate :: String -> String -> Bool
searchPredicate = \_ _ -> False
seems to make no difference.And the default is:
searchPredicate = isPrefixOf
Patching and recompiling with this patch[1] mentioned here[2] seems to fix the issue.[1]: https://code.google.com/p/xmonad/issues/attachmentText?id=39... [2]: https://code.google.com/p/xmonad/issues/detail?id=393
Since st has no scroll buffer, theoretically it's impossible for st to consume more memory than xterm. If st does eat up more, it should be because of its screen buffer, whose size is decided by the size of its window.
Also, yes, the rendering portion of st is not the fastest. I know it pretty well because I implemented it like an year ago. It has been improved, but it's still kinda hacky due to lack of proper Unicode layout engine (or normalization). And what makes things worse is that existing layout engines(ICU, harfbuzz, etc) are just "sucks" for suckles community, while making a new one is not feasible AFAIK.
I exclusively use bitmap fonts in terminals and editors for crisp and clear text and cannot get bitmap fonts to work in st config.h anymore.
Trying to customize xmonad is why I use i3 now.