3 ms·
Modern applications have a host of demands placed upon them today that older ones did not. Whether it's complex theming capability, accessibility support, or s
by binarycrusader 13y ago
Modern applications have a host of demands placed upon them today that older ones did not. Whether it's complex theming capability, accessibility support, or special font/unicode support, things aren't so simple.
I say this as a long-time vim/emacs user... (yes, I've learned and use both although I primarily use vim).
So while I'll readily agree that I doubt they work as much at optimisation, they're also being asked to do significantly more.
- chipotle_coyote 13y agoI think you're right, but Vim and Emacs and BBEdit all seem to have managed this without unduly choking. I'm not sure where the "fault" actually is in these specific cases -- if I had to place a bet it might be on the syntax scoping algorithms, as nearly every post-TextMate editor seems to re-implement TextMate's language files. (I don't know if Zed does.)
- binarycrusader 13y agoLet's not pretend emacs/vim are perfect; there are certainly situations where they slow down. I certainly have files where the syntax highlighting isn't so speedy or where it's temporarily broken. I'm just trying to point out that attempting to compare applications from a certain period in computer history to modern applications is doomed to fail. While I certainly believe optimisation work would help some modern editors, it would be silly to attempt to blame that all on optimisation work instead of recognising that the world is different now.