5 ms·
> it's probably around thousand times more optimized than Visual Studio Code I am not saying that VS Code is everyone's answer and choice but VS Code is resour
by baldfat 8y ago
> it's probably around thousand times more optimized than Visual Studio Code
I am not saying that VS Code is everyone's answer and choice but VS Code is resource friendly enough. Who cares about the resource difference between EMACS and VS Code in real world practicality? I know people love to bash anything electron but it really isn't anything to worry about when programing with anything that is 6 years old or newer.
VS Code is immediate and responsive on my Dell at work (10 years old) (I refuse to give it up even though I have several more computers but everyone needs a spare computer) what do we need besides that in terms of resource-efficient now a days? I know that it use to be a big deal and I propose that its a non-factor these days.
- hellofunk 8y agoI can use Emacs and write C++ and compile often and go 15 hours on a single Mac Book pro battery charge. That’s why some people use Emacs.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago> Who cares about the resource difference between EMACS and VS Code in real world practicality? I literally use different apps on battery vs wall power: wall: Firefox, Slack, VSCode battery: Safari, mail, Emacs The difference is clear as night & day. Mac OS X has a tab in Activity Monitor where you can observe energy impact of different apps, and it consistently reports Electron apps as... psychotic. An order of magnitude (10x) more intensive than their native counterparts.
- saagarjha 8y agoBattery life, mostly. This is also important if you’re running a lot of things at once.