From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Politz Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs's popularity Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:56:57 +0100 Organization: FH-Trier Message-ID: <1229446683.393643@arno.fh-trier.de> References: <2103fd36-c5cd-4e8d-a74f-34697a369934@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <003101c954de$f95a3000$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <87skop8cc7.fsf@iki.fi> <20081215210907.GB3848@groll.co.za> <87ljuh86il.fsf@iki.fi> <878wqg4alp.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1229449249 28358 80.91.229.12 (16 Dec 2008 17:40:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:40:49 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 16 18:41:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LCdvc-0002Ke-5P for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:41:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37690 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCduQ-00054Z-8l for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:40:38 -0500 Original-Path: news.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-2.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-kl.de!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 90 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 143-93-54-11.arno.fh-trier.de Original-X-Trace: news.uni-kl.de 1229446731 15017 143.93.54.11 (16 Dec 2008 16:58:51 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-kl.de Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:58:51 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018) In-Reply-To: <878wqg4alp.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> Cache-Post-Path: arno.fh-trier.de!unknown@dslb-084-059-218-239.pools.arcor-ip.net X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Original-Xref: news.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:165364 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:60695 Archived-At: Phil Carmody wrote: > "Lennart Borgman" writes: >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Richard Riley wrote: >> >>>>> But Vim is not only installed; it's really used a lot. In Debian Vim has >>>>> always been a bit more popular than Emacs but in the first half of 2007 >>>>> Vim really got popular (around Vim 7.1 and Debian 4.0 release). This >>>>> "used actively" graph compares vim-common, emacs21-bin-common and >>>>> emacs22-bin-common packages: >>>>> >>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/5thmmx >>>> That is a bit strange since the vi emulator Viper in Emacs is now so good. >>>> >>> Not strange at all Lennart, Why would someone run the Emacs OS to run >>> emulated vim when they can run the real thing in 100th of the >>> footprint? >> Exactly why do you think the footprint matter? > > 1 vote for 'emacs has a large footprint, and that matters to me'. My machine > has 128MB RAM. Emacs 21 is pretty OK, but 22 uses noticeably more memory, > which is my most limited resource. > > Exactly why do you think that it doesn't matter? > > But it's not just RAM footprint where emacs compares unfavourably to vim, > in fact, RAM-wise it's not a huge difference, only about a couple of megs > difference. Far more importantly is the CPU footprint. Emacs 21 takes 3 > times as long to start up as vim does on a large plain text file (so no > syntax highlighting or anything being done). Emacs 22 takes even longer, > in particular as the loading was interrupted with a "that's a big file, > are you sure?" prompt. > > Can you imagine vim-proponents not looking at these times (averaged over > 3 runs, after everything was in the cache) with a sense of pride? > > vim emacs21 emacs22 > 0.004 0.10 0.20 = start with no file, quit > 0.18 0.58 0.62 = start with 12MB file, quit > ???? 0.59 0.66 = start with no file, open 12MB file, quit The command to open a is ':edit '. > > (didn't know how to open a file from within vim, as it's utterly illucid.) > > In which case, why shouldn't we emacs proponents look on them with a sense > of shame? More than 3 times slower - is that not shameful? > > Phil Here are a couple more numbers : $ time vim -c 'quit' real 0m0.226s user 0m0.112s sys 0m0.048s Processed lines of vimscript : 18867 (According to the vim command :scriptnames)* $ time emacs -nw -Q '(kill-emacs)' real 0m0.234s user 0m0.168s sys 0m0.036s Processed lines of byte compiled elisp : 50717 (According to load-histoy)* * and 'wc -l' I took the best out of 3 trys. Note I was a heavy vim user, so I got lots of vimscripts around. If you start vim w/o anything loaded (e.g. in compatible mode) or a bare minimum (e.g. just a simple ~/.vimrc) it'll be ligthning fast. Maybe you can try and load emacs with a nil load-history ? However, vim is completely written in C with an optional interpreter for it's own extension language (you can start editing in vim w/o reading a single line of vimscript), it'll always be faster, in some sense of 'faster'. I don't know how far you'll get in emacs using only the c level functions, probablly not far. -ap