6 ms·

This might mark the first time in history that Emacs was trotted out as an example of a performant editor. I say this as an Emacs user.

by trimbo 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Compared to what kids these days use, it's as fast as a lightning bolt.
Philipp__ 10y ago
I am Emacs user. Have you tried it lately? It is lightning fast compared to Atom/VSCode. It's not as fast as Vim, struggles with long lines, and all that, but boy how surprised I when I uninstalled VSCode and fired up Emacs after a week of usage of VSc.
- trimbo 10y ago
  > Have you tried it lately? I would, but it's still swapping back into RAM. (For real though: yes, I use it all day)
DigitalJack 10y ago
Emacs takes 8-15 seconds to open on my new i7. That matters when I just want to do quick edits. Vscode takes 3.
- Philipp__ 10y ago
  For me Emacs opens up in about 2 seconds and it's ready to go and print text input in scratch buffer. I am on 2015 MacBook Pro 13" with i5.
  - braveo 10y ago
    That's been my experience as well, although that's still too slow for my tastes as a vim user. But I definitely don't ever recall it being 8 seconds, that feels like either an exaggeration or someone working on a potato.
    - klibertp 10y ago
      > that feels like either an exaggeration or someone working on a potato. Haha, no. It depends on what you use Emacs for. Remember the old joke about Emacs being a great OS? The reality is that Emacs is a great computing environment for almost anything that deals with text and even for some completely unrelated things. If you want a cross-platform GUI then Emacs Lisp may be one of the choices available. This caused "plugins" - Elisp applications - to flourish and over the years a lot of code was written. Long story short, I have ~640000 (not a typo) lines of Elisp in my ~/.emacs.d/ alone, not counting the built-in Elisp libraries. It takes time to load that much code, even if it's byte-compiled beforehand.
      - braveo 10y ago
        fair enough, I've never been able to stay with emacs long enough to collect the plugins. The 1-2 second startup was slow enough that I couldn't even stay with the Emacs evil mode.
  - eric_the_read 10y ago
    For me, it takes <700ms, but that's because I leave it running all the time and call emacsclient from the command line.
- packetslave 10y ago
  export EDITOR="emacsclient -a ''"
  - DigitalJack 10y ago
    Unfortunately the group of plugins I use combined with running in windows just isn't stable enough to keep a server process running. Admittedly this is a corporate laptop with all their virus crap running, so no editor is fast. But emacs in particular has very bad startup times for me.
- sedachv 10y ago
  There is something wrong with your system.
- klibertp 10y ago
  It's not "Emacs" itself, it's plugins and Elisp libraries you have loaded. Emacs itself - the GUI, even including (optionally) blinking cursor - is actually quite fast. To prove this, this command: time emacs -Q --eval "(kill-emacs)" reports ~0.2 sec on my system. My normal Emacs, just as yours, needs ~12 seconds to start up. But I made it this way by explicitly enabling and requiring things. I could, with some effort, get the time down to 5-8 seconds (byte-compilation and gathering autoloads in one place), and even back to around a second if I was desperate enough to try dumping the image of a running Emacs to disk (I did it once and succeeded, although the process wasn't pretty). I don't do this because I don't care that much, but the option is there.
  - DigitalJack 10y ago
    Yes, this is true. But emacs without plugins isn't worth much, and I'm too old to enjoy playing the configuration fiddle for more than a few minutes
Touche 10y ago
There's a lot of grass-is-greener comparisons happening. I'm a long-time Vim user and if I forget to turn off syntax highlighting before opening a large file it comes to a crawl as well.

This might mark the first time in history that Emacs was trotted out as an example of a performant editor. I say this as an Emacs user.

by trimbo 10y ago

This might mark the first time in history that Emacs was trotted out as an example of a performant editor. I say this as an Emacs user.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Compared to what kids these days use, it's as fast as a lightning bolt.

Philipp__ 10y ago

I am Emacs user. Have you tried it lately? It is lightning fast compared to Atom/VSCode. It's not as fast as Vim, struggles with long lines, and all that, but boy how surprised I when I uninstalled VSCode and fired up Emacs after a week of usage of VSc.

trimbo 10y ago
> Have you tried it lately? I would, but it's still swapping back into RAM. (For real though: yes, I use it all day)

DigitalJack 10y ago

Emacs takes 8-15 seconds to open on my new i7. That matters when I just want to do quick edits. Vscode takes 3.

Philipp__ 10y ago
For me Emacs opens up in about 2 seconds and it's ready to go and print text input in scratch buffer. I am on 2015 MacBook Pro 13" with i5.
- braveo 10y ago
  That's been my experience as well, although that's still too slow for my tastes as a vim user. But I definitely don't ever recall it being 8 seconds, that feels like either an exaggeration or someone working on a potato.
  - klibertp 10y ago
    > that feels like either an exaggeration or someone working on a potato. Haha, no. It depends on what you use Emacs for. Remember the old joke about Emacs being a great OS? The reality is that Emacs is a great computing environment for almost anything that deals with text and even for some completely unrelated things. If you want a cross-platform GUI then Emacs Lisp may be one of the choices available. This caused "plugins" - Elisp applications - to flourish and over the years a lot of code was written. Long story short, I have ~640000 (not a typo) lines of Elisp in my ~/.emacs.d/ alone, not counting the built-in Elisp libraries. It takes time to load that much code, even if it's byte-compiled beforehand.
    - braveo 10y ago
      fair enough, I've never been able to stay with emacs long enough to collect the plugins. The 1-2 second startup was slow enough that I couldn't even stay with the Emacs evil mode.
- eric_the_read 10y ago
  For me, it takes <700ms, but that's because I leave it running all the time and call emacsclient from the command line.
packetslave 10y ago
export EDITOR="emacsclient -a ''"
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  Unfortunately the group of plugins I use combined with running in windows just isn't stable enough to keep a server process running. Admittedly this is a corporate laptop with all their virus crap running, so no editor is fast. But emacs in particular has very bad startup times for me.
sedachv 10y ago
There is something wrong with your system.
klibertp 10y ago
It's not "Emacs" itself, it's plugins and Elisp libraries you have loaded. Emacs itself - the GUI, even including (optionally) blinking cursor - is actually quite fast. To prove this, this command: time emacs -Q --eval "(kill-emacs)" reports ~0.2 sec on my system. My normal Emacs, just as yours, needs ~12 seconds to start up. But I made it this way by explicitly enabling and requiring things. I could, with some effort, get the time down to 5-8 seconds (byte-compilation and gathering autoloads in one place), and even back to around a second if I was desperate enough to try dumping the image of a running Emacs to disk (I did it once and succeeded, although the process wasn't pretty). I don't do this because I don't care that much, but the option is there.
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  Yes, this is true. But emacs without plugins isn't worth much, and I'm too old to enjoy playing the configuration fiddle for more than a few minutes

Touche 10y ago

There's a lot of grass-is-greener comparisons happening. I'm a long-time Vim user and if I forget to turn off syntax highlighting before opening a large file it comes to a crawl as well.