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: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:37:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83oady9pch.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> <20151210120051.6be8201f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449769107 32247 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2015 17:38:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 18:38:18 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 1a75AX-00058U-DX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:38:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43435 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a75AW-0004iK-QZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:38:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a75AC-0004gq-9e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:37:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a75A9-0005gR-Jf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:37:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:54991) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a75A9-0005gC-8h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:37:53 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NZ500H00KUPGL00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:37:48 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NZ500HN8KYXBH20@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:37:46 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20151210120051.6be8201f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:196032 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:00:51 -0500 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > Cc: deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 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. Of course. We agree. This particular problem doesn't have a solution yet, but if someone has ideas, feel free to describe them and submit patches. > I've noticed that a lot of things (like keyboard macros) are often > slower than expected in modern Emacs. Please file bugs for those, with recipes to reproduce the slowness, and I assure you they will be looked at. > 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 agree. The issue is how to solve those problems, not whether we want to or should. > 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.) The particular issue with long lines doesn't need any test suite to reveal it. It's a known issue, ever since Emacs 21.1 was developed; it's not a regression that somehow slipped into Emacs. I filed bug #13675 for it to make a statement: we don't want to live with this problem, we want to solve it. Ideas for how are welcome. Thanks.