AWP 🇵🇸

I like to look at claims like this in case I can improve Ghostty. I grabbed your source and immediately spotted the issue: your read loop overwrites a 64 KiB ring. Everything older is discarded unparsed per tick. You're faster because you're not actually terminal emulating. It means the number isn't a throughput number. In a kitten benchmark run at the rate you're claiming, roughly 6.6 MB arrives per 60 Hz tick and 64 KiB of it gets parsed. You're read(2)-ing 100% of the data and parsing about 1% of it. There are other minor issues (a small fixed scrollback in a preallocated ring buffer, no grapheme clustering, throwing away data like OSC 8 URIs, etc.), but the major one is simply that you're discarding ~99% of the input. For plain text, e.g. your cat benchmark, the final screen ends up looking right, but the scrollback is missing 99% of the file and each retained chunk starts mid-line. As soon as there are escape sequences in the dropped spans, your emulator is fully out of sync and invalid: a cut inside a CSI prints the parameters as text, and any SGR, mode, title, or alt-screen change in the gap is just... gone. FYI, this is why I don't like when people point at refterm as a terminal benchmark. refterm implements a TINY subset of what a terminal emulator must support, it's closer to a fast file reader, not a terminal emulator. I also don't mean any shade by this. I like to look at technology objectively to try to learn something and improve my own craft and work. So I'm sharing what I found. I modified your code very slightly to parse on every full buffer (rather than per tick). And the results are attached. Both use main commit in each repo at the time of this post. Note the graph is in log scale, the discrepancy between performance for things like Kitty images is measured in GB/s.