zsh-bench VS zimfw

Someone's made a benchmarking system for zsh: https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#premade-configs

Of course, their config is the best according to the benchmark (and ohmyzsh is the slowest option), but DIY configs are also covered, particularly possible performance optimizations.

Unfortunately, running exit is not a great strategy for running benchmarks. For zsh specifically, plugin managers are optimized for fast exit.

romkatv did a great write-up and benchmark within the context of zsh[0]. It's a great read.

[0] https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#how-not-to-benchmark

Given the addition of async rendering in the latest release of spaceship, I wasn't sure whether I should include performance in the list of features found in powerlevel10kbut but not in spaceship. I used zsh-bench to benchmark powerlevel10k on my laptop running on battery (I'm writing this on a train) with a config that makes powerlevel10k looks similar to spaceship. I simply ran p10k configure and chose what looked most similar: Lean Style, UNICODE, 256 colors, two lines, etc. Here are the benchmark results:

Obligatory link since you are engaging in profiling interactive zsh: https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench.

1.) It's fast. Like, really fast. 1.) It supports deferred loading via zsh-defer 1.) It supports local plugins as well as ones hosted via a git provider (aka: GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, etc) 1.) The codebase is simple and easy to understand and contribute to 1.) It supports git branches (with tag/shas on the roadmap) 1.) It supports partial plugin loading such as loading Oh-My-Zsh plugins and Prezto modules without loading the whole framework. 1.) There's an easy migration path from legacy plugin managers like Antigen/Antibody. 1.) Plugins are managed via a simple plugins file that makes it easy to share your config with others. 1.) And lots more

In any case, slow zsh startup is always caused by whatever you put in zsh startup files and it's always possible to reduce zsh startup to imperceptible levels without sacrificing any functionality by editing said startup files. There is a bit of info on interactive zsh performance at https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench.

Why is this a good thing? Is this a proxy for performance? If so, you can measure performance directly with zsh-bench. This way you can describe the advantage in terms that have real value to end users. For example, you can say that the first prompt appears N milliseconds faster when using Zpy than if you were using something-else.

More on topic, I use zim, but mostly write my own plugins/modules/ad-hoc/post-hoc scripts

I’m using zimfw Flexible and fast. https://zimfw.sh

I was using oh-my-zsh as my plugin manager for a long time and startup speed was probably much slower than fish (although normal usage wasn't) because omz enables a lot of features and plugins I didn't need/use. I went to prezto and then antigen as plugin manager and for the last couple years I have been using zimfw, which is great compromise between a plugin manager that can add and update plugins, and literally just generating a small bootstrap script that just sources the plugins and otherwise is entirely out of the way.

zsh with zim framework

switch to zsh isntead of bash and use pre prepared framework for it, I like zim zsh

I moved most of my config over to zim -- been pretty happy for the most part. I see that zinit got forked, which makes me happy, that was a mess and what made me look elsewhere. Hopefully the new committers can do it well.

zimfw