> In comparaison I have to add that the rendering in more defined in Urxvt that Contour even after tinkering,
Nothing is perfect. Many thanks for trying though. If you don't mind, maybe you could file a report in github.com/contour-terminal/contour/issues/ such that we know about it, can track it, and also, report back to you, once it's improved?
Generally speaking, it's hard to say that rendering is that bad, because we simply use FreeType for glyph rasterization as well as Harfbuzz for text shaping. That doesn't mean it's perfect. I know that not everybody likes lcd subpixel rendering in Contour, and that anti-aliasing (AA) methods are generally highly subjective on what the best AA method is. We implement multiple such that most users should find what they like the most.
If that still doesn't fit, I'd like to know about it, so we can hopefully fix it, just in case it is a bug on Contour's end.
> and like always it uses at least 5 times less memory
That's not a good metric to look at, at least it's not enough info to judge about. I recently read a guy comparing the memory resource usage of many terminals when having 2,000,000 lines of history configured and found Contour to be the winner here. This doesn't mean much though. I think just looking at the memory consumption is not enough to reason about it. I do agree however, that it should not blindlingly grow over time to something unreasonable. We try not to carelessly allocate any resource, so I'm pretty certain that we're doing "okay" in terms of RAM requirements.
I will find some time to write an issue about the rendering.
And you're right, contour is doing okay in terms of memory, especially compared with other modern terminals. It's just that the first run after built uses already 250mb, and I think that when I will setup some fonts and run a few panes inside it will probably go higher. But if it stays around this number, it's really fine.
Nothing is perfect. Many thanks for trying though. If you don't mind, maybe you could file a report in github.com/contour-terminal/contour/issues/ such that we know about it, can track it, and also, report back to you, once it's improved?
Generally speaking, it's hard to say that rendering is that bad, because we simply use FreeType for glyph rasterization as well as Harfbuzz for text shaping. That doesn't mean it's perfect. I know that not everybody likes lcd subpixel rendering in Contour, and that anti-aliasing (AA) methods are generally highly subjective on what the best AA method is. We implement multiple such that most users should find what they like the most.
If that still doesn't fit, I'd like to know about it, so we can hopefully fix it, just in case it is a bug on Contour's end.
> and like always it uses at least 5 times less memory
That's not a good metric to look at, at least it's not enough info to judge about. I recently read a guy comparing the memory resource usage of many terminals when having 2,000,000 lines of history configured and found Contour to be the winner here. This doesn't mean much though. I think just looking at the memory consumption is not enough to reason about it. I do agree however, that it should not blindlingly grow over time to something unreasonable. We try not to carelessly allocate any resource, so I'm pretty certain that we're doing "okay" in terms of RAM requirements.