in a responseblog, Malte S. Stretz (who's a pretty cool guy, i might add) noted that while Konsole may be more efficient in certain workloads, that there is room for improvement in places like start up time.
he's right. KDE has lots of room for improvement. we do a lot of things quite well right now, however. and we'll get more things Right(tm) with future development. but it's being able to hold both the idea that we Rock and the idea that we have room for improvement in our heads at the same time that's important.
anyways, on to Malte's numbers! he notes that `xterm -e bash -c exit` takes 0.363s while 'konsole -e bash -c exit' takes 2.148s. holy crap! over 6 times as long! ah... but there's a catch. a small one, but still a catch...
on my system, with both xterm and konsole in cache so as to remove the affects of disk i/o as much as possible, `xterm -e bash -c exit` takes ~0.165s and 'konsole -e bash -c exit' takes ~.9s, but 'kstart konsole -e bash -c exit' takes ~0.5s. the kstart hack brings konsole start up times down from being ~5.5x slower to being ~3x slower. that's much better, but more importantly, that multiplier works out to just one third of a second longer to launch konsole.
now stop for a moment and consider that: a third of a second. for all those features, for all that KDE goodness. 300 milliseconds.
let's also consider that terminals are really a Worst Case Scenario. xterm and friends don't do a lot, and they aren't very interesting. because of this they start up fast and are slim like that Olsen twin. and still KDE apps compete reasonably in this space.
this bodes very well for KDE applications in more complex venues such as word processors, web browsers and so on.
yes, we have a LOT of optimization possibilities ahead of us. yes, our software can and should be faster, including starting up. yes, we have a lot of development ahead of us to do because KDE isn't perfect yet.
we're only mostly perfect. ;-)