Why are terminal multiplexers bad?

The Case Against Terminal Multiplexers: Why Simplicity Trumps Complexity

Terminal multiplexers, while seemingly offering increased efficiency by allowing multiple terminal sessions within a single window, often introduce a significant amount of hidden cost that outweighs their perceived benefits. The promise of streamlined workflow often fails to materialize, replaced instead by a frustrating layer of complexity that actively hinders productivity. This isn’t about a specific tool, but a critical examination of the underlying principle: sometimes, simpler is better.

The core issue lies in the cognitive overhead. Learning a new command set, mastering shortcuts specific to the multiplexer, and consistently navigating its unique interface requires significant mental effort. This mental juggling act detracts from the primary task: focusing on the actual work being done within the terminal sessions. Instead of seamlessly switching between tasks, users are forced to spend time remembering and executing the multiplexer’s commands, disrupting their flow and leading to context switching penalties.

Consider this scenario: a developer needs to quickly check the logs of a running application, edit a configuration file, and then run a database query. With a multiplexer, this simple task necessitates navigating between panes, potentially using different keybindings or mouse actions for each, before finally executing the desired commands. In contrast, using separate terminal windows, while appearing less visually organized, offers a more direct and intuitive path to task completion. The cognitive load is significantly reduced, allowing the developer to focus solely on the individual tasks.

Furthermore, the perceived efficiency gains often diminish with experience. While a beginner might find the initial novelty of a single window appealing, proficient users quickly become adept at managing multiple terminal windows efficiently, often utilizing window management tools and keyboard shortcuts tailored to their workflow. The learning curve and ongoing maintenance of the multiplexer become unnecessary burdens.

The argument for multiplexers often hinges on screen real estate. However, modern operating systems offer robust window management features, allowing for highly customized and efficient arrangements of multiple windows. These features, already familiar to most users, often provide a more flexible and easily customizable solution than the rigid structure often found in multiplexers.

In conclusion, while the allure of a unified terminal environment is tempting, the reality is that terminal multiplexers introduce unnecessary complexity, demanding significant learning and ongoing mental effort. The cognitive load and the time spent mastering their nuances often outweigh any perceived gains in efficiency. For many users, the simpler, more direct approach of utilizing separate terminal windows, coupled with effective window management, proves to be a significantly more productive strategy. The elegance of simplicity often surpasses the complexities of seemingly sophisticated solutions.