> Features like ... are better provided by a terminal multiplexer
I would strongly argue that this thinking is putting the cart before the horse.
I don't use tmux, nor do I want to (though occasionally I have to use screen as a hack to keep programs running on remote servers, and I hate every second of it). Solutions like tmux arguably exist because terminals have poor UIs, and the terminal protocol is too weak to form the foundation for the kind of interactivity and statefulness provided by modern graphical UIs. If terminals were as powerful as, say, web browsers (not that I'm suggesting that anyone conflate them), the world would be a different, happier place.
I think Hyper [1] is going down the wrong path, but I strongly believe a new "terminal-oriented UI model/protocol" could be invented that would scratch every possible itch — good for text, mouse support, custom UI widgets, seamless remote connections, multiple screen regions — without sacrificing functionality at all.
[1] https://hyper.is
I would strongly argue that this thinking is putting the cart before the horse.
I don't use tmux, nor do I want to (though occasionally I have to use screen as a hack to keep programs running on remote servers, and I hate every second of it). Solutions like tmux arguably exist because terminals have poor UIs, and the terminal protocol is too weak to form the foundation for the kind of interactivity and statefulness provided by modern graphical UIs. If terminals were as powerful as, say, web browsers (not that I'm suggesting that anyone conflate them), the world would be a different, happier place.
I think Hyper [1] is going down the wrong path, but I strongly believe a new "terminal-oriented UI model/protocol" could be invented that would scratch every possible itch — good for text, mouse support, custom UI widgets, seamless remote connections, multiple screen regions — without sacrificing functionality at all.
[1] https://hyper.is