From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: string> missing? Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 18:07:35 +0300 Message-ID: <837frjqzpk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oakxkvqw.fsf@petton.fr> <83zj4grgkc.fsf@gnu.org> <87sia8n8b5.fsf@petton.fr> <87zj4gu821.fsf@gnu.org> <83sia8rdkm.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5crbfd.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433430543 17406 80.91.229.3 (4 Jun 2015 15:09:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nicolas@petton.fr, tsdh@gnu.org, nandryshak@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 04 17:08:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Wl8-0002hl-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:08:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42824 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Wl7-0001Yk-1J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:08:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34212) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Wks-0001Yd-SW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:08:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Wko-0001nL-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:08:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:52273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Wko-0001n4-6N; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:08:22 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NPF00J00DGLI400@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:59:20 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NPF00HD1DMW1V40@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:59:20 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:187022 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:24:44 -0400 > From: Richard Stallman > CC: eliz@gnu.org, nicolas@petton.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org, tsdh@gnu.org > > I decided to define string< and not string> back when keeping Emacs > small was a major design goal. Even one additional function was worth > avoiding. I considered > so basic that it was worth adding, but > string> we could live without. > > That goal no longer exists. I see no harm in adding string> for > symmetry, now. You say that this goal no longer exists, but the practice of Emacs maintenance tells me otherwise. We are still making optimization changes, some of them quite deep and pervasive ones, for very little benefits, like a few percents decrease in memory footprint or in CPU usage, even under the most favorable conditions. In some cases, we are prepared to pay dearly for such changes in obfuscating the code with tricky multi-tiered macros, and in complicating the code and making it harder to understand and maintain. So it looks like making Emacs as small and as fast as humanly possible is still very much a goal we want to pursue and are ready to pay for, and therefore addition of convenience functions should be considered with care, on a case by case basis. If it's no longer a goal, we should state that loud and clear, and start rejecting optimization- related changes that fail to produce tangible gains, say, at least 10% or 15%.