Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 168 posts

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

#111

Post by eru »

pg83 wrote: post #92
grg0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm provably doing the minimum amount of work possible. That is a very bold claim to make for the amount of render code generated by the LLM. It's not obvious what the critical path even is, which is what would bound the latency. And I mean actual code, not just some informal description of what happens.

Expert opinion versus expert opinion. I will probably stick to my point of view and suggest that you either offer a benchmark or show a specific problem in my code, without speculation on the topic of LLM.

If you say 'provably', you should offer the proof. In Lean perhaps? But in English is also ok.

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

#112

Post by oneshtein »

naikrovek wrote: post #87
fishgoesblub wrote: post #51

> Shitty is moving from the imported GPL baseline to an MIT-only codebase. It does not intend to retain the GPL as the final project license. An interesting, and disappointing choice. Shitty, one may say.

I never understood this stance. I’ve heard this for 30 years and I still don’t understand why people feel entitled enough to enjoy the benefits of someone else’s work without giving anything back. Forcing someone to release their code for free isn’t freedom, that’s a lack of freedom. Oh, you want the code to be free. Well guess what? MIT licensed means you can have it. Oh, you want a third party’s changes to be made…

Nobody forces to release YOUR code for free, you can keep it at home, OR you can buy a commercial license for MY code.

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

#113

Post by gertop »

pg83 wrote: post #70
mellosouls wrote: post #54

Going by the childish naming of the project, it doesn't inspire confidence in the professionalism of the author going forward, and neither will it help with getting it installed on corporate networks. I'm all for vulgar wit but this isn't that (yes I'm aware of the -tty convention) & just reinforces the cliche of tech skills inversely proportional to social ones

I assure you, this is a very professionally made product: - we have 5,000 tests covering all aspects of terminal behavior - we have address sanitizer and ub sanitizer runs of these tests - we also have regular fuzzing! - we even monitor code coverage This is definitely a top 0.1% GitHub project in terms of development approach. > and neither will it help with getting it installed on corporate networks. I'm fine with…

> This is definitely a top 0.1% GitHub project in terms of development approach.

Shitty is almost 100% generated by AI, tests and all. Is that really what you see as the epitome of development? Enough that you self rank in top 0.3%?

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

#115

Post by andreyvit »

naikrovek wrote: post #74
chamomeal wrote: post #19

I will def try this out and I absolutely love the name. Just an A++ name

Can you explain why you think so? Seems like a very childish name to me. Like a neighborhood kid outside on his bike yelling “shit” then pedaling away as fast as he can, to dissociate himself from the event out of fear of getting caught. FaTTY - Fast Terminal (executable named “ft”) RaTTY - Rapid Terminal (“rt”) LighTTY - Lightspeed Terminal (“lt”) Dragster (“dt”) McQueen (“mt”) Names are hard, but it’s trivial to co…

I disagree that FaTTY is better than shitty. And I concur with the original commenter; an awesome name fit for the terminal proliferation age.

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

#116

Post by defrost »

cyanregiment wrote: post #39
butterisgood wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimize the aglets!

I only use the finest of gold. They also count my steps. (also I had to look up aglet )

There's an 80s era tip of my tongue movie with glob of dialogue abut the inventor of the aglet living the American dream becoming insanely rich from Nth of a cent per shoelace royalties.

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

#117

Post by aqula »

joncp wrote: 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.”

I keep going back to xfce-terminal after trying anything else. Ridiculously small footprint and never drew attention to itself.

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

#118

Post by potamic »

mellosouls wrote: post #54

Going by the childish naming of the project, it doesn't inspire confidence in the professionalism of the author going forward, and neither will it help with getting it installed on corporate networks. I'm all for vulgar wit but this isn't that (yes I'm aware of the -tty convention) & just reinforces the cliche of tech skills inversely proportional to social ones

Given git is all over the corporate world, I say this is less of an issue than you make it out to be.

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

#119

Post by sejje »

mitchellh wrote: post #103

Creator of Ghostty here. Always a fan of new terminals. I noticed your benchmarks are against Ghostty 1.3.1, which is fair, since its the latest released, but our IO throughputs in particularly the areas you tested have improved by more than double on some machines, so if you get a chance, I would ask you rebenchmark on `main`. I don't know if it'd be faster than your terminal or not, but it'd be significantly faster…

What are your go-to checks for quality terminals, when you are scoping out something new?

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

#120

Post by potamic »

compiler-devel wrote: post #48
jmyeet wrote: post #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.

shitty is a perfectly cromulent name.

It indeed embiggens the spirit very well.
Post reply on HN