Message-Id: <199912022311.SAA10245@delorie.com>
From: "Leon" <Leon AT caresystems DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: emcAsc
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:11:57 +1000
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> > 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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *