ConEmu

Pros of Terminal

• Modern, native Windows 10/11 application with better integration and performance
• Officially supported by Microsoft with regular updates and improvements
• Supports multiple tabs and panes within a single window

Cons of Terminal

• Fewer customization options compared to ConEmu
• Less mature project with potentially fewer advanced features
• May have a steeper learning curve for users familiar with traditional Windows consoles

Code Comparison

ConEmu configuration example:

<key name="Software\ConEmu">
    <key name=".Vanilla">
        <value name="ColorTable00" type="dword" data="00362b00"/>
        <value name="ColorTable01" type="dword" data="00423607"/>
    </key>
</key>

Terminal configuration example:

{
    "profiles": {
        "defaults": {
            "colorScheme": "Campbell",
            "font": { "face": "Cascadia Code" }
        }
    }
}

Both projects allow for extensive customization, but Terminal uses a more modern JSON-based configuration approach, while ConEmu relies on XML and registry settings.

Pros of Alacritty

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• GPU-accelerated rendering for improved performance
• Minimal, customizable configuration through a YAML file

Cons of Alacritty

• Limited built-in features compared to ConEmu's extensive functionality
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and customization
• Lacks GUI-based settings management

Code Comparison

ConEmu configuration (XML):

<key name="Colors" modified="2023-05-01">
  <value name="Scheme" type="string" data="Solarized"/>
  <value name="TextColorIdx" type="dword" data="00000001"/>
  <value name="BackColorIdx" type="dword" data="00000000"/>
</key>

Alacritty configuration (YAML):

colors:
  primary:
    background: '#002b36'
    foreground: '#839496'
  normal:
    black:   '#073642'
    red:     '#dc322f'

Summary

ConEmu offers a feature-rich terminal emulator with extensive customization options and a user-friendly interface. It's Windows-focused and provides a wide range of built-in functionality.

Alacritty, on the other hand, is a minimalist, cross-platform terminal emulator that prioritizes performance through GPU acceleration. It offers a simpler configuration approach but requires more manual setup and lacks some of the convenience features found in ConEmu.

Pros of kitty

• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, BSD)
• GPU-accelerated rendering for improved performance
• Extensive customization options and scripting capabilities

Cons of kitty

• Steeper learning curve due to configuration complexity
• Limited Windows support (requires WSL)
• Lacks some advanced features found in ConEmu (e.g., quake-style dropdown)

Code Comparison

kitty configuration example:

font_family      Fira Code
font_size        11.0
background_opacity 0.9
enable_audio_bell no

ConEmu configuration example:

<key name="FontName" type="string" data="Consolas"/>
<key name="FontSize" type="dword" data="0000000a"/>
<key name="BackgroundImageOpacity" type="dword" data="4d"/>
<key name="DisableBell" type="dword" data="00000001"/>

Both kitty and ConEmu are powerful terminal emulators with unique strengths. kitty excels in performance and cross-platform support (excluding Windows), while ConEmu offers a more Windows-centric experience with advanced features. kitty's configuration is more streamlined, using a simple text format, whereas ConEmu relies on XML for its settings. The choice between the two depends on the user's operating system preference and specific terminal needs.

Pros of WezTerm

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• GPU-accelerated rendering for improved performance
• Extensive configuration options using Lua scripting

Cons of WezTerm

• Steeper learning curve due to Lua-based configuration
• Larger resource footprint compared to ConEmu

Code Comparison

WezTerm configuration (Lua):

return {
  font = wezterm.font("JetBrains Mono"),
  color_scheme = "Solarized Dark",
  default_prog = {"pwsh.exe"},
}

ConEmu configuration (XML):

<key name="Font" data="JetBrains Mono"/>
<key name="ColorTable00" data="00362b00"/>
<key name="StartupTask" data="{Powershell}"/>

Summary

WezTerm offers cross-platform compatibility and GPU acceleration, making it a powerful choice for users across different operating systems. Its Lua-based configuration provides extensive customization options but may require more time to learn. ConEmu, while Windows-focused, has a simpler configuration process and a lighter resource footprint. Both terminals offer robust features, with WezTerm excelling in modern rendering techniques and ConEmu providing a more traditional Windows console experience.

Pros of tmux

• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, BSD)
• Lightweight and highly customizable
• Persistent sessions that survive network disconnections

Cons of tmux

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Limited GUI support and graphical customization options
• Primarily terminal-based, which may not suit all users

Code Comparison

tmux configuration example:

# ~/.tmux.conf
set -g mouse on
set -g status-bg black
set -g status-fg white
bind-key v split-window -h
bind-key s split-window -v

ConEmu configuration example:

<!-- ConEmu.xml -->
<key name="Tasks" modified="2023-04-15 12:00:00">
  <value name="Task1" type="string" data="{Shells::cmd}"/>
  <value name="Task2" type="string" data="{Shells::PowerShell}"/>
</key>

tmux focuses on terminal multiplexing and session management, while ConEmu provides a more comprehensive terminal emulation experience with GUI features. tmux excels in cross-platform compatibility and lightweight operation, whereas ConEmu offers better Windows integration and a more user-friendly interface for those less comfortable with command-line tools.