18 ms·

In particular, it should use little more memory than the buffers being edited. I'm pretty sure memory footprint of a text editor is not a relevant concern on

• kennywinker 11y ago
  > I'm pretty sure memory footprint of a text editor is not a relevant concern on modern laptops. https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/1827 https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/1827
• vidarh 11y ago
  A single editor is not the only thing I run. The only reason I have 8GB on my current laptop is because too many people think that it is no big deal if just their app spends more.
• gnuvince 11y ago
  I can't remember where I heard this, but someone said once that better performance opens up more, and sometimes new, ways to work with a program. I use GNU Emacs myself, and I basically start it when I boot my laptop and never shut it down, which means that sometimes it has an uptime of months. I will also often not close buffers that I'm working on and can end up with hundreds of buffers in Emacs. Yet, the performance is entirely unaffected (or at least, the impact is below what this human can notice). If Xi is serious about keeping memory usage low, these kinds of patterns of usage that I and many other Emacs users have adopted are going to be viable; on the other hand, in an editor like Atom, one should probably keep as few buffers opened as possible.
• panic 11y ago
  For software with variable-sized inputs, performance never stops being relevant. Higher performance increases the maximum size of inputs you can handle. For a text editor, the lower the footprint, the larger the files it can edit and the more of them can be edited at once.