Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

github.com

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#31
post #23

I prefer Ghostty as there is no this "Claude" thing in its contributors. But I guess it's always good to have competitions.

I'm a huge proponent of AI, as long as there's a human in the loop and strong models are used. In fact, it's even reflected in our CONTRIBUTING.md that we prefer LLM-assisted code!

https://github.com/pg83/shitty/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#32
post #30

Nice work! I do wonder, however, whether people really have issues with perf on any terminal emulator in 2026 I’ve been living in Terminal.app / zsh / tmux / vim for 15 years and have never once thought “this is slower than I want.”

Speed itself may not be very important, but it is a very interesting challenge in itself - to prove to yourself that you can surpass the state of the art!

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#33

why no iTerm2 in the benchmarks ? It far outperforms the likes of kitty and ghostty

> far outperforms the likes of kitty and ghostty

this is not true on my machine, at least for my usual benchmark Doom-fire-zig[1]. on said benchmark, ghostty 1.3.1 runs at about 350fps, wezterm 20260713-212414-b3255666 runs at 415fps, Terminal.app runs at 100fps, iterm2 3.6.11 runs at 80fps.

[1]: https://github.com/const-void/DOOM-fire-zig

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#35

Why wouldn't you use this?

The lifetime rendering-time savings wouldn’t even offset the five minutes required to install it and make it my default terminal.

I would need to display roughly 70 GB of benchmark-equivalent ASCII output before Shitty recovers a five-minute switching cost relative to GNOME Terminal.

This assumes I’m actively blocked by every byte being rendered.

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#36

why no iTerm2 in the benchmarks ? It far outperforms the likes of kitty and ghostty

has iTerm2 improved significantly in the last couple of years? I remember feeling the speedup when I went from iTerm2 to kitty, so that's surprising to me.

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#37
Two mild criticisms:

1. Don't call your project "shitty". At best it's juvenile humor. At worst, it's going to make adoption within companies difficult for literally no reason; and

2. You don't need a two letter command. I'm sorry but you're not that special. Your tool should instead denote its purpose with its name. In this case something like "sterm" or "stty" would do that perfectly without being verbose.

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#39

Geeking out on terminals is like geeking out on shoelaces. I'm glad you guys are out there - someone has to do it.

Optimize the aglets!

I only use the finest of gold.

They also count my steps.

(also I had to look up aglet)

Re: Show HN: Shitty – fast terminal. Memory-unsafe and faster than yours

#40
post #30

Nice work! I do wonder, however, whether people really have issues with perf on any terminal emulator in 2026 I’ve been living in Terminal.app / zsh / tmux / vim for 15 years and have never once thought “this is slower than I want.”

To me, the most relevant aspect is the time it takes to open. I can't believe how slow the startup time in common linux distributions is by default, it's so annoying, by the time it opens I already forgot what I wanted to do. Alacritty has this cool feature where you only ever have to "open" a single terminal, whereas new windows can be created very efficiently with `alacritty msg create-window`, being forks of the initial window. It makes using my pc a lot more comfortable.
Post reply on HN