6 ms·
I find it to be a bit depressing that software bloat has advanced to the point that we have text editors plagued with performance issues.
by discreditable 11y ago
I find it to be a bit depressing that software bloat has advanced to the point that we have text editors plagued with performance issues.
- lispm 11y agoThirty years ago people complained that GNU Emacs needed 8 megabytes of RAM.
- peatmoss 11y ago"Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping"--Seems quaint now, doesn't it?
- TheSoftwareGuy 11y agoA little, but at least it could open an 8mb file, not to mention a 2mb file...
- georgemcbay 11y agoThis is true, but if you gave emacs the 8 megabytes it wanted it ran great even at scale (lots of buffers into lots of giant open files) in my experience. OTOH (also in my experience), Atom is somewhat Eclipse-esque (though admittedly not nearly as bad as Eclipse) in that the performance problems it has at scale cannot really be solved by throwing more hardware at it... whether you are on a relatively low-end laptop or a high end pro workstation with a 3ghz CPU and dozens of gigabytes of memory, if you open just a few big (>2 megabyte) files in Atom you're pretty hosed.
- tbolt 11y agoThirty years ago 1MB of RAM was $800+ ...I would have complained too.
- lispm 11y agoOf course, that was the reasoning behind it. RAM was expensive and allocating all the RAM on an Unix box to one process was 'unpopular'. Especially when there were more than one time-shared user on the machine.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rplnt 11y agoThere are still editors out there that work. Just don't use those that suck, and they will go away. Or at least I wish they would.