Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> It's a bit disingenuous on the part of that person to compare Emacs
> with another editor _solely_ where there's a known inefficiency in
> Emacs, and pretend that this is somehow representative of the general
> differences in performance between these two editors.  After all, how
> frequently do you need to edit files with lines in excess of 11K
> characters?

The intention wasn't to be misleading or trash Emacs, but to highlight
an area ripe for improvement.  I also assumed it was common knowledge
for anyone that would be interested in such an esoteric topic that mg
is a shell of Emacs in terms of features, so the comparison is
"contrived".

Below is a comment I added to the video shortly after it was posted.

Following the discussions on Reddit [1] and more testing, it's clear
that the major difference in speed was a result of certain operations
within the macros than the macros themselves.

emacs -nw -Q:

Slow:
M-: (while (< (point) (point-max)) (end-of-line) (insert ",")
(next-line) (beginning-of-line nil))

Within a second or two:
Define a macro with M-x end-of-line / , / C-f and run it 3869 times.

Instantaneous:
M-: (while (< (point) (point-max)) (end-of-line) (insert ",")
(forward-line 1))
M-: (replace-regexp "$" ",")

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/3vp583/macros_in_gnu_emacs_and_mg_speed_comparison/