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: dired and ls Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:02:36 +0200 Message-ID: <83egc7nlhv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87povs41xg.fsf@gnus.org> <87bn7c3yms.fsf@gnus.org> <87mvqvewk6.fsf_-_@gnus.org> <83k2lzpuuj.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456002219 16467 80.91.229.3 (20 Feb 2016 21:03:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "John Wiegley" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 20 22:03:34 2016 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 1aXEgf-0000G1-R3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:03:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35634 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXEgf-00012y-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXEg8-0000Pu-81 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:03:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXEg4-0001OC-A1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:03:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXEfz-0001Ng-5D; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:51 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3133 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aXEfy-0005Qg-Bp; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:50 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:21:37 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:200342 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:21:37 -0800 > > >>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > One reason why ls-lisp might be slower is that it performs quite a bit of > > processing after reading the directory, and that processing is faster in C > > than in Lisp. But it could be faster in insignificant ways. > > There's also em-ls (eshell's implementation of ls in Lisp). I wonder how it > compares to ls-lisp on this performance point. em-ls is about 6 times slower than ls-lisp.