4 ms·
I’m a fan but I’ve seen performance of command line programs suffer from running in other enacts shells. Same thing in esgell?
by keeptrying 8y ago
I’m a fan but I’ve seen performance of command line programs suffer from running in other enacts shells. Same thing in esgell?
- aerique 8y agoSort of: you definitely don't want to run a program that generates tons of output in eshell. I like eshell, especially since it also runs on Windows giving a consistent CLI across multiple OSes. But I don't really use it since I don't want to have to keep in mind: "Oh, better open a real term and not do this in eshell."
- TeMPOraL 8y agoI feel the performance of large outputs (5-digit numbers of lines) got better with Emacs 26. At least since switching 1.5 months ago I didn't notice much lag anymore. Right now I'm with "experimenting with shells in Emacs" phase, but I can already report good results. Most of the typical shell work I do in eshell now, but I also keep some shells (regular and M-x async-shell-command ones) in the background, to e.g. connect with openvpn or run node.js servers. I haven't seen any performance issues so far.
- kqr 8y agoI think the length of the lines matters more than the number of lines, due to Emacs attempts at dealing with soft-breaks in the least astonishing way.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoSo I heard, yes, but before Emacs 26, I had problems with some buffers (particularly SLIME and eshell) slowing down as they accumulated a couple thousand of fontified lines. I usually had to clear (C-c M-o) SLIME buffer after 1-2k lines because the slowdown in typing got noticeable. Since switching to Emacs 26, I had SLIME accumulate a hundred thousand lines without visible slowdown. I didn't spend much time digging into Emacs and profiling the problem, so I can't tell you much beyond my guesses that it had to do with fontification.
- aerique 8y agoThanks, sounds like I should give it a chance again.