From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:46:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> <20200322123818.GB32470@ACM> <87eetk5swm.fsf@gnu.org> <20200326193128.GC14092@ACM> <86d08y4zsx.fsf@gmail.com> <83sghs7qdz.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7y63sjj.fsf@gnu.org> <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12zz6ds.fsf@gnu.org> <054393f3-3873-ab6e-b325-0eca354d8838@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="107895"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: martin rudalics , eliz@gnu.org, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 06 16:47:40 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLT2J-000Rz9-TE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 16:47:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33042 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLT2J-00081a-0M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:47:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLT1R-0007bJ-IW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:46:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLT1Q-0003x1-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:46:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:61716) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLT1P-0003vv-0d; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:46:43 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE792100492; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23FB2100447; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:46:40 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586184400; bh=riUJaSJ++0VzpHqaB6eDjrqoCuVyI6aqMrsbSahA3Hk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=i2n9hTbjuIKgC+w+alXSTN11+4LyTalh3QLYpsq5iYxoqxi4fvc/JG2CL2xco9GBl g1EUp+NPMCwstiZr9Ew4vaRPbDkrxRBbm7tPvU0oq4VHiAgqTVLoWvHmt3HbRfA9Px kaTFRDNf9Vkua1uWWQwVxS2U3MiV50CgVR8yWptTNqOSxzFs1raLdGB5rYJWZ8k7ej ay7s/iatlqtdaypethxu1eEhDIWOvSvVRFqM8VUNbE+MVT2jVXYDL/l7ig5v0DQPvR KNdzj+HXeZHvd/iWmlEof/y8/br1v1Xt5mIvyaKYgWg126Dpt1QvX2OzePffAsj3TT 70zJjKCRQaXUA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A72D31200DF; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:46:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 05 Apr 2020 22:36:20 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246529 Archived-At: > > Recent Emacsen either ignore that variable or silently reset it to nil > > internally so it doesn't get into their way. Their progmodes either > > always scan an entire buffer from its beginning or use some elaborate, > > fragile techniques to find such a top level position. Moreover, our > > underlying mechanism for syntax highlighting always marks the entire > > rest of a buffer as dirty after every single editing change. This has > > the consequence that that entire part has to be continuously rescanned > > when some of it is shown in another window. > > Does anyone disagree with this specific factual claim? There are several claims above which can be interpreted in many different ways, some of them correspond to reality but many others don't. So if you don't know the actual facts behind the above claims you're likely to infer incorrect conclusions. > > The basic slowness of Emacs over the past years is a direct consequence > > of that policy. > Does anyone disagree with this general claim? I think I made it clear that I do. Stefan