My mini-story: I'd switched to zimfw which does a ton of caching, precompiling. It benches very well versus other zsh frameworks. But something was still taking almost a second for me, every time. https://github.com/zimfw/zimfw
Even the final starting time for zsh from TFA is quite bad.
On a 6-year old desktop PC with a Ryzen CPU, an interactive zsh starts in 20 ms and a login zsh starts in 60 ms.
The configuration file for the interactive zsh, i.e. "~/.zshrc", has 75 lines and it configures completions (in the default manner added to ~/.zshrc by compinstall), binds some keys, sets umask and some shell options and defines a bunch of environment variables (including the prompt) and of command aliases.
I do not see what else would be needed, which could increase the starting time.
My login zsh takes 40 ms longer because I do not use a GUI login, but the classic CLI login, so the login zsh checks if a GUI desktop session is running and if not it starts the session (obviously, the 60 ms login zsh starting time is for when the GUI session is already running).
I have a complex fish shell configuration with ~100 autoloaded functions and about 180 lines across config.fish and a dozen conf.d/ files.
On my system, hyperfine says fish loads in about 85ms:
Benchmark 1: fish -il -c exit
Time (mean ± σ): 85.0 ms ± 3.3 ms [User: 50.1 ms, System: 31.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 82.9 ms … 101.1 ms 28 runs
And that's without giving up a single thing in the name of quickness. Stick with zsh if you want, but understand that there are tradeoffs. And for the fish end of those tradeoffs: 1) most command lines work identically between fish, zsh, and bash; 2) where they don't, the fish version is nearly always more pleasant and obviously correct for interactive use; and 3) you don't have to uninstall bash, ya know — you can still `curl foo | sh` to run some random script off the net if you feel the desire. Your existing stuff doesn't stop working.
Because of the performance and stability issues I moved to fish for 1 year and I like it even more, it's syntax, functions it's tab completions, for some reason with zsh I always had an issues, my bad, but fish work perfectly out of the box.
13 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] threadI’ve been using mise [1] to manage node versions since with zero issues.
[1] https://mise.jdx.dev
https://arunmozhi.in/2024/09/06/replacing-pyenv-nvm-direnv-w...
https://asdf-vm.com
zprof helped me and the LLM profile and we found it was one plugin, which wasn't really intended specifically for zim. Fixed that! https://github.com/lipov3cz3k/zsh-uv/issues/2
Man it feels so good having shells just open so lightning fast.
What all is happening in the Zsh profile?
- also you should put a list of all your article. (titles only) on some page called /archive or something
- i really dont want to scroll 5000 pages to see the last 20 articles you wrote
- just a suggestion from a ui / ux perspective
On a 6-year old desktop PC with a Ryzen CPU, an interactive zsh starts in 20 ms and a login zsh starts in 60 ms.
The configuration file for the interactive zsh, i.e. "~/.zshrc", has 75 lines and it configures completions (in the default manner added to ~/.zshrc by compinstall), binds some keys, sets umask and some shell options and defines a bunch of environment variables (including the prompt) and of command aliases.
I do not see what else would be needed, which could increase the starting time.
My login zsh takes 40 ms longer because I do not use a GUI login, but the classic CLI login, so the login zsh checks if a GUI desktop session is running and if not it starts the session (obviously, the 60 ms login zsh starting time is for when the GUI session is already running).
On my system, hyperfine says fish loads in about 85ms:
And that's without giving up a single thing in the name of quickness. Stick with zsh if you want, but understand that there are tradeoffs. And for the fish end of those tradeoffs: 1) most command lines work identically between fish, zsh, and bash; 2) where they don't, the fish version is nearly always more pleasant and obviously correct for interactive use; and 3) you don't have to uninstall bash, ya know — you can still `curl foo | sh` to run some random script off the net if you feel the desire. Your existing stuff doesn't stop working.