|
|
@ -189,8 +189,17 @@ running Ubuntu 18.04 with the config from the demo.
|
|
|
|
| powerlevel9k/next | 1005 ms |
|
|
|
|
| powerlevel9k/next | 1005 ms |
|
|
|
|
| **powerlevel10k** | **8.7 ms** |
|
|
|
|
| **powerlevel10k** | **8.7 ms** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
powerlevel9k/master is the stable branch of powerlevel9k, the one that virtually everyone uses.
|
|
|
|
_powerlevel9k/master_ is the stable branch of Powerlevel9k, the one that virtually everyone uses.
|
|
|
|
powerlevel9k/next is the development branch for the next release.
|
|
|
|
_powerlevel9k/next_ is the development branch for the next release. Powerlevel10k is over 100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
times faster than either in this benchmark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fairness, Powerlevel9k has acceptable latency when given a spartan configuration. If all you need
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the current directory without truncation or shortening, Powerlevel9k can render it for you in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 ms. Powerlevel10k can do the same 30 times faster but it won't matter in practice because 17 ms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is fast enough (the threshold where latency becomes noticeable is around 50 ms). You have to be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
careful with Powerlevel9k configuration as it's all too easy to make prompt frustratingly slow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powerlevel10k, on the other hand, doesn't require trading latency for utility -- it's virtually
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instant with any configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## License
|
|
|
|
## License
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|