On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 15:33, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
wrote:

Hi Michael,


> Well, we aren't in disagreement. I spoke about the case of "C-x & C-x
> C-f .../emacs/lisp/*.el". This opens 250 buffers, all in the same frame.
>

But that happens without threading as well. Or did you mean “all in their
own frames”? That would indeed be terrible.

Since I'm already posting to the list, I just want to raise a point that I
have been thinking about as I have been reading this discussion.
Personally, I don't see why most (any?) commands needs C-x &. Most of the
time, the user wouldn't know that a certain operation is going to take time
and therefore needs C-x &. Someone else mentioned on this list that a
better solution would be to simply open a new buffer, but letting its
contents say “loading…” if it takes too long. The same could be the case
for things like Gnus or any other long-running command.

Killing the buffer would kill the process, in case it's hung.

Perhaps I didn't understand the issues that were raised in this thread, but
it wasn't clear to me why C-x & would ever be needed (or rather, why its
absence would ever be needed).


> > It seems as though some of these same questions were being asked back
> > in the 60's. :-)
> >
> > Here's a picture of the display unit for anyone who is curious:
> > https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/RealDSKY.jpg
>
> Nice. Does it run Emacs? :-)
>

It is a 15-bit machine with 48 kwords of memory. 2 of those kwords were RAM
and the rest ROM. The CPU was 2 MHz, with a very cumbersome instruction set.

So yes, I'm pretty sure you could get some incarnation of Emacs running on
it. :-)

Regards,
Elias