Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> The text said 1454 "cells", so I multiplied that by the number of
> characters in each number (8).  Apologies if I misunderstood, but the
> demo didn't really supply enough info to be sure.

I say, "...there are just over 1450 columns."

>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> > 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 naïve 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.

>> I neither wrote nor said that mg was faster.

> Really?  The demo says it implements only part of the features of GNU
> Emacs, but in return i is "more efficient and fast".  If that doesn't
> mean mg is faster, then what does it mean?

I say, "It only implements a subset of the features of GNU Emacs, but
in return it's quite efficient and fast."  In retrospect I do wish I
had been clearer and elaborated on the "contrived" part of the test.

Again, the goal was to promote discussion, and in the end, hopefully
improve Emacs.  I will take the video down at some point.  I also
don't want to give new users the wrong impression.