From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "spamfilteraccount@gmail.com" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: State-machine based syntax highlighting Date: 7 Dec 2006 11:29:26 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1165519766.210117.88410@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1165472049.496117.320630@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165488825.132862.189340@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165492567.864982.59980@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165495364.560960.271250@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1165501630.172348.157180@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1165502373.932709.15860@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165510932.276718.251220@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> <1165516558.657188.21610@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165520513 23817 80.91.229.10 (7 Dec 2006 19:41:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 07 20:41:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GsP7v-0008En-Rx for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:41:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsP7v-0002b8-FZ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:41:51 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 17 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.182.19.195 Original-X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165519782 7482 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2006 19:29:42 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.01 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.182.19.195; posting-account=b98TkQ0AAAD7PsllN8gfWGRoPOPWdnv4 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:143733 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:39335 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Good to know. I thought font-lock was implemented in elisp and didn't > > bother to check. > > If you look at the code you'll probably think it's implemented in elisp. > But if you look at a profile, you'll probably see that it's spending most of > its time in either text-property manipulation functions, or > regexp-matching, or parse-partial-sexp, all of which are written in C. You wrote VIM is a little faster than Emacs. Is it because of the time spent in the elisp part in emacs or the C part itself is implemented more efficiently in VIM? If it's the latter then the C implementations could be compared to see what VIM does better.