From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speed of keyboard macro execution? Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20151210120051.6be8201f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> References: <20151209163954.0cefcc7f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87si3bcltu.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <20151209180343.5a67c0e7@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3iu9rvp.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449766890 25845 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2015 17:01:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 18:01:30 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a74as-0003cq-67 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:01:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43031 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a74ar-0008UG-6Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:01:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51958) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a74aL-0007nK-PO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a74aK-0007yS-Sj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:53 -0500 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:59651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a74aK-0007yL-Py for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:52 -0500 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAD92AF; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:52 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB632DE13C; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83r3iu9rvp.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196026 Archived-At: On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:43:06 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:03:43 -0500 > > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:13:17 +0100 David Engster > > wrote: > > > Perry E. Metzger writes: > > > > Perhaps it would be good to dig in to what is causing the > > > > issues in question... > > > > > > Emacs does not cope very well with very long lines. > > > > How might that be addressed? > > This is simply bug#13675. > > It's a bit disingenuous on the part of that person to compare Emacs > with another editor _solely_ where there's a known inefficiency in > Emacs, and pretend that this is somehow representative of the > general differences in performance between these two editors. > After all, how frequently do you need to edit files with lines in > excess of 11K characters? I don't know if it was disingenuous or not, but I think that being able to improve performance would not be a bad thing. I've noticed that a lot of things (like keyboard macros) are often slower than expected in modern Emacs. We may, as a developer community, have allowed the speed of modern hardware to lull us into complacency on issues like performance. Emacs should be the best editor it can be. I suppose this ties back in to earlier discussions about automated testing (as, among other things, automated testing can find performance regressions before they matter.) Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com