Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/12/02/20:04:44
> > was just wondering how the fact that Emacs was coded in lisp
interpreter
> > affects the speed of launching emacs and its ram needs? (as compared to
vim
> > for example) in particular with regards to old systems like 486 sx with
> > about 4 meg ram?
>
> Why wonder about that? It's a fact of life that Emacs *is* coded in
> Lisp, to a large portion. So even if that were the reason for it to be
> too slow to be useful, on that small machine, you'ld not be able to do
> anything about it, anyway.
not true - i am in the process of deciding whether to use vim or emacs - so
if the situation would spell the very slow EMACS on a machine of interest -
then i would do something about it - ie use vim.
> Actually, Lisp is conceptually a better language for a program like
> Emacs, than C can ever be. Lisp lives for string operations, which are
> a persistent pain in C, if you have to do many of them.
just wrap those in C++ and if you are a good designer - no problem
> The real reason that emacs is so slow on startup is its absolute
> size. It simply won't fit into 4MB RAM, without much squeezing, and as
> soon as you start compilations from inside Emacs, it'll die.
thanks! that is a very good info becuase it will allow me to make sort of
educated decision - what RAM size would you consider to be OK for running
EMCAS (while also running compilers of course ;-)
With best regards
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leøn
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
- Raw text -