From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speed of keyboard macro execution? Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:39:24 +0200 Message-ID: <83a8pg6rpv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20151209163954.0cefcc7f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87si3bcltu.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <20151209180343.5a67c0e7@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3iu9rvp.fsf@gnu.org> <86egesbegr.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449905984 22892 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2015 07:39:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Joseph Mingrone Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 12 08:39:29 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 1a7em8-00050p-0c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:39:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50876 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7em6-0001K6-TU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:39:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46941) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7em2-0001Jn-Td for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:39:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7elz-0000oM-MG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:39:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:60148) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7elz-0000oH-F6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:39:19 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NZ800300IEKCO00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:39:17 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NZ8003DJILF5O90@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:39:17 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <86egesbegr.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 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:196161 Archived-At: > From: Joseph Mingrone > Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:14:28 -0400 >=20 > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > It's a bit disingenuous on the part of that person to compare Ema= cs > > with another editor _solely_ where there's a known inefficiency i= n > > Emacs, and pretend that this is somehow representative of the gen= eral > > differences in performance between these two editors. After all,= how > > frequently do you need to edit files with lines in excess of 11K > > characters? >=20 > The intention wasn't to be misleading or trash Emacs, but to highli= ght > an area ripe for improvement. That's not what the text there says. It says that mg is simpler, but faster, and gives this particular example of how it is faster. The impression that a na=C3=AFve observer will end up after that is that = Emacs is simply unworkable, since it cannot even scroll through a file in some reasonably short time. A more honest comparison would be to show scrolling through some source file (with "normal" line lengths), which is something any Emac= s user does every day many times. I'm guessing that Emacs will be slower there as well, but instead of showing how it takes Emacs an infinite time to do something, such an example would provide a much more realistic comparison of relative speed between the two. > I also assumed it was common knowledge for anyone that would be > interested in such an esoteric topic that mg is a shell of Emacs in > terms of features, so the comparison is "contrived". That's exactly my point: it's so contrived that it loses credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows a little about Emacs. > Below is a comment I added to the video shortly after it was posted= . No amount of commentary will make that video less lopsided. A fair comparison should simply compare other use cases, that's all.