Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> I clearly disagree.  If there's no loop in your .emacs, then byte-compiling
>> won't bring you any benefit.
> It's not about the code being faster, is about the .elc being smaller
> (about 10% smaller) than the .el.

10% smaller will result in a non-measurably faster load, and will still take
90% more disk space.  So what's the advantage again?

>> then you should most likely take those things out of your .emacs and move
>> them to a separate file/package.

> Why? You prefer it that way, OK, do that. I don't like having lots of
> small .el files loaded from .emacs; it's easier to maintain it
> up-to-date between two or more computers when it's a single file.

I don't want to make it impossible to byte-compile your .emacs.  If that's
really what you want, go for it.  I'm just saying that we should discourage
people from doing that, because too many users think "oh Emacs takes a long
time to start, I bet if I byte-compile it it'll start faster", but it turns
out it's not faster and next time they forget to re-compile their .emacs
they get bitten.  It's not the most common problem on gnu.emacs.help, but
it's sufficiently common that I think the potential very minor advantage(s)
is just not worth it.

OTOH I'm in favor of adding some kind of hack so that the .emacs file
automatically goes through the byte-compiler's sanity checks when you save
it (so they user might can warnings about using obsolete
variables/functions).


        Stefan