I, a person who don't care about battery performance one iota (because my computer has no battery), love this answer and approach. Not every software is for everyone, and authors drawing a line in the sand like that works out better for everyone in the long-term, instead of software that kind of works OK for everything.
In some cases yes. In this case, in my opinion it can be strictly wrong.
The GPU requirements of a terminal are _minuscule_ even under heavy load. We're not building AAA games here, we're building a thing that draws a text grid. There is no integrated GPU on the planet that wouldn't be able to keep a terminal going at an associated monitor's refresh rate.
From a technical standpoint, there is zero downside whatsoever to always using the integrated GPU (the stance Ghostty takes) and plenty of upside.
Because _my_ computer has no battery. There is a plethora of computers out there with batteries who can run Linux, Windows, and macOS. These computers can, on paper, run Alacritty.
Cherry on top is me being a former user of a MBP 2010 who'd crash when using discrete GPU (it was _the_ reason Apple went with AMD later on). And some apps insisted on using it, even when I disabled it.
I like Rust applications but I don't like this response. The dev sounds worn out; whereas the dev of Ghostty seems to be a pleasure to deal with.
