clink VS Windows UI Library

It would allow portable graphics applications on the terminal, e.g. this C64-emulator-in-Docker only renders ASCII characters, but could be extended with sixels to render graphics (I actually tinkered with this, but didn't get far because most terminals have either none or too slow sixels support):

https://github.com/chrisant996/clink/releases

If you don't want to learn the powershell commands then clink can enhance the existing cmd shell. It provides a lot of features i was used from bash/zsh: completion, history across sessions, colors, fzf integration and so on. Can be extended with lua.

Windows Terminal is great and an enormous improvement over conhost. That said, cmd itself isn't any better unless you extend it with something like Oh My Posh and clink. Add GNU CoreUtils to your path if (like me) your muscle memory is to use ls and rm over dir and del.

- windows terminal https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/windows-terminal/9N0DX20HK701 - al cmd lo mejoro con clink https://github.com/chrisant996/clink

Clink (https://github.com/chrisant996/clink) combines the native Windows shell cmd.exe with the powerful command line editing features of the GNU Readline library, which provides rich completion, history, and line-editing capabilities. Readline is best known for its use in the Unix shell Bash, the standard shell for Mac OS X and many Linux distributions.

clink injected into cmd.exe + msys for the utilities, all hosted in OpenConsole

Download the zip file for portable clink from the clink site We will only use clink in the custom Windows Terminal profile by manually extracting the portable clink to the Program Files folder. If you want to install clink to the normal CMD also, you can use the installer and omit the following steps until step 3.0

It has been around for some time however I just found it. It is called Clink . Anyone interested in a video tutorial

I wish that was true, but even the new stuff, like their new frameworks, performs poorly while their older frameworks perform really well. That's brand new code, with no legacy codebase to care for.

The reason why I don't recommend Winui is the million bugs it has. See the github issues page. All Microsoft ui stuff sucks currently. But if you use WPF why not FluentWPF

Development for WinAppSdk and WinUI 3 is also very slow and Microsoft seems to not want to push it and invest more developers into it for some reason. They try to improve the framework, is just it's a small team. For example it was a headacke to apply the Mica backgrop and required unmanaged code, they made it simpler and reduced it to a line of code but it took months. I have 2 out of 7 issues fixed on WinAppSdk repository and 0 out of 8 issues fixed in the WinUI 3 repository (some of the older than a year). This are just my issues, there are many other opened by other developers. So yeah, it wasn't fun at all. PoweshellSDK had an issue with the Import-Module command and it wasn't fixed for more than a year and probably won't be ever fixed, but I'm glad I found a workaround, even more clean and more safe, otherwise I couldn't have added the posibility to uninstall and change Store apps.

Compared to UWP or WPF, WinUI 3 is somewhere between 100-200% slower and consumes 7-20 times as much RAM as the old frameworks (for certain operations).