From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: Is Elisp really that slow? Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <93a685cf-8feb-45d5-b68e-e8ba03deae34@default> References: <20190515210924.sijzy6mnpgzkt4gm@Ergus> <83ftpecwu1.fsf@gnu.org> <20190516161408.4dov3dwk5h4yoizn@Ergus> <838sv6cmwt.fsf@gnu.org> <20190516202327.5cgy2s4kppy3ahxa@Ergus> <871s0yqg2i.fsf@telefonica.net> <3210C8E9-7A74-47D6-81A0-470948E6D09C@gmail.com> <87r28xq0j1.fsf@telefonica.net> <20190517055202.ted62gt6hqcip7xt@Ergus> <83mujlbgjh.fsf@gnu.org> <20190517123551.vumasyoyr5bv5voq@Ergus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="165499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Ergus , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 17 17:03:27 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hReOM-000gwb-Ki for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 17:03:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49899 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hReOL-0005Qg-JL for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:03:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49482) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hReO3-0005PO-3u for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:03:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hReO1-00018Q-3n for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:03:07 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:32846) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hReNx-00016E-L4; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:03:01 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4HEsBSF102662; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:02:57 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=w3famvqUat71rUVzVq2zGyNxhjksUrAmg2SxRtesRBE=; b=5djqfdMcOK5IWbYPe8wGh/iFaET3t6yXfRNDm35NWXLG3qvH81mHDOOYKJ8mP+lQKfoE lzQLaYdscnWowgNZczxZT/zdB5uLIW6c8H7w5jM6O5mO5uXzvfDbvifs4X8YAl73ibBG QgQz9V/s01bDXiEoaVwkCToC3DA32wmEklENUSlSi2b6hubTYq3cYeQabsNjuAtAn67n 7o4dSveGQx7n1Z6H+KJ/IxN82EXfowDSvGmGIQsKbbGZfK+kexAZRTFt9lcMBxJCfM8p eQF5EUXxfy/8T90fiuFOvNcJz8oTBrLxWacIbQe8SSIOovskW1CP9Uar4d3oFBBgCXQH /w== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2sdq1r26wp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 May 2019 15:02:57 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4HF2JWs170424; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:02:57 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2sgkx4r827-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 May 2019 15:02:57 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x4HF2uxc024160; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:02:56 GMT In-Reply-To: <20190517123551.vumasyoyr5bv5voq@Ergus> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4849.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9259 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=2 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905170092 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9259 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905170092 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.85 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:120490 Archived-At: > The gui could look much modern with a couple of lines in the > configuration. But the first impression now is like a program in windows > 95. "Modern" look-&-feel changes... Imagine if hair or clothing styles were stuck in the "modern" of 1975, 1985, or 1995. More important than making something look and feel "modern" once and for all is helping it be _easily changeable_, so it can be made (by users) to feel any way (modern, retro, whatever) at any point in time. Yes, it would be good if it were easier to change some of the look-&-feel aspects of Emacs that are baked in C code. To make that possible there would no doubt need to be more people working on that aspect. The argument that just attracting more users will provide users who would contribute to that effort is weak. Maybe, maybe not. What can be said is that if there are _no_ new users then that effort won't be extended - duh. For those aspects that users can change in _Lisp_, Emacs shines in its ability to change look-&-feel, and other behavior, so that it does _not_ get locked into today's (and so yesterday's) idea of what "modern" is like. The problem is that there are some basic look-&-feel aspects that cannot be easily changed by users - they are built in C and in some cases are platform-dependent. Improving _that_ requires additional development energy, and often quite a lot of expertise. User-developers to work on that are, yes, sorely needed. > My real proposes (if any, which is not actually) would be to change > those basic ones with jkli, or asdw (it is just an example). Delete > redundant bindings like ESC =3D Alt for prefixes, M-4 =3D C-u, or the > numerical prefixes with alt and C and keep only one. Join similar > "opposite" commands like C-o and C-j, or comment uncomment to exploit > negative prefix for one of them (so we free a bind and standardize > somehow, except C-d and DEL). Reserve one prefix only for user specific > functions and recommend the packages not to use that. Talk about changing default key bindings etc. to attract new users is, in general, a waste of time. That's _not_ the problem Emacs has wrt "modernism", as Eli and others have pointed out. Gaining a few great hackers to help with the C level (or other "low-level" design/implementation) is a different story - Emacs could really benefit from that.