3 ms·

The problem with emacs-based solutions is the speed.

• bch 6y ago
  Hasn’t been a problem for me for years. It seems to me that often this argument is based (directly or indirectly) from conditions 20 or more years ago. I think Emacs itself hasn’t changed much (it’s gotten better, but not fundamentally different), but the supporting environments (read: hardware) easily make for a usable experience. There are better poster children for bloat these days.
  • apjana 6y ago
    Can't counter that given I've last used emacs years back.
• bigbubba 6y ago
  I suppose I've not tried it in any sort of extreme scenario, but it's not clear to me what dired would be slow at. Functions like copy-file are implemented in C.
  • apjana 6y ago
    My response was from from emacs perspective. Here's a memory usage comparison: https://github.com/jhallen/joes-sandbox/tree/master/editor-perf#memory-used-when-loading-helloc-with-syntax-highlighting-enabled https://github.com/jhallen/joes-sandbox/tree/master/editor-p... Looks like emacs uses at least double the memory.
    • bigbubba 6y ago
      I guess, but I think somebody using dired would be using Emacs anyway, and dired is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
      • apjana 6y ago
        Completely agree.