3 ms·
https://imgur.com/a/i99Nisn https://imgur.com/a/i99Nisn 1.4 seconds for 100 packages, half of which are on probation? My (and soon `HYPER//MODERN`'s) package s
by benreesman 3y ago
https://imgur.com/a/i99Nisn https://imgur.com/a/i99Nisn
1.4 seconds for 100 packages, half of which are on probation? My (and soon `HYPER//MODERN`'s) package set is under heavy construction, I'll be sad if I don't get it under 300ms including loading and rendering a logo at 6k from a cold disk which that was.
Rust is a perfectly good language for writing tight code, but those `emacs` inner loops have been tuned by hard-ass pros for 30+ years in straight C, which is plenty fast too. Even the best Rust code doesn't have that kind of tuning in.
`emacs` is fucking fast.
- estebank 3y agoWith no intention to push back on Emacs being highly optimized, age of an application is not an accurate proxy for level of performance. If it were, grep would be faster than ripgrep. New software can apply optimisations discovered over the previous 40 years, and leverage architectural designs with different assumptions, like the GC limits in Emacs discussed elsewhere in the comments. Older applications can apply those same optimizations, but it's not a given that they will, and changing their architecture can be daunting, for sometimes unknown benefits.