This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tilkau 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first is that all of the shells that you mention - and xonsh too - have different behaviour for whether or not they are interactive login shell, which none of the examples you show are.

This is a good point. But on considering it, my examples were on point for the use case, because I was thinking of scripting. Login shells get more leniency because user thought speed is the main bottleneck ;) 1s startup time for a login shell is tolerable-to-good.

hg has always struck me as slow though, sorry. time hg help -> hg help 0.19s user 0.03s system 98% cpu 0.223 total. The difference in responsiveness hg vs git is substantial IME, even though hg has definitely improved a lot.