From: Weiqi Gao <weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: emcAsc
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 08:01:29 -0600
Organization: CRL Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <38467BB9.C690F63D@a.crl.com>
References: <199912020150 DOT UAA16655 AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: a116003.stl1.as.crl.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Leon wrote:
> 
> 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?

When I had my 486DX-33 with 8MB RAM, and I used OEmacs, The launch time
is not bad at all.  It's considerably longer than Elvis or DOS EDIT, but
it's still within the human tolerance threashhold.  And it took less
time to launch OEmacs than to launch Windows.

And, being an editor, once it's launched, you can't feel the difference
between it and the faster launching variants (except for the occational
"Procrastinating" and "Garbage collecting" fits).

BTW, GNU Emacs was written in C, with an extension language which is
Emacs Lisp.  Saying that Emacs is written in Lisp is like saying that
Netscape Navigator is written in JavaScript.

-- 
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com