| |||||||||||||
Difference in startup speed.Difference in startup speed.Posted Nov 2, 2006 13:01 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)In reply to: Emacs vs VI by ldo Parent article: Pre-testing Emacs 22 You start emacs more than once per login?
(Log in to post comments)
Difference in startup speed. Posted Nov 2, 2006 13:39 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] It's XEmacs that has the slower startup, because its package manager must recurse over all package directories to find and load all auto-autoloads files. Emacs is quite nippy by comparison.
I consider the three-second wait to be *more* than worth it for the increased flexibility that the package-management system brings.
Difference in startup speed. Posted Nov 2, 2006 15:37 UTC (Thu) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Or use Jed (http://www.jedsoft.org/jed/) and get vi startup speed with many emacs features. It's typically one of the first things I install on any system I'm administering.
Difference in startup speed. Posted Nov 2, 2006 19:30 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] And like any self-respecting programmer's text editor, Jed isprogrammable (with Slang). I don't understand how Linus can use an editor (microemacs) that isn't programmable... :-) I use Vi, Emacs and some GUI text editors in addition to Jed. Long ago my original reason for starting using Emacs (on 8 Mhz / 4MB machine) was its regex-replace feature (at that time my main text editor was Mutt (programming language) editor).
QEmacs -- another fast emacs alternative Posted Nov 6, 2006 10:37 UTC (Mon) by pink18 (subscriber, #32445) [Link] 49KB. The killer feature for me, compared to other clones, is that vertical split mode works (out of the box).
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemacs/
Difference in startup speed. Posted Nov 9, 2006 9:59 UTC (Thu) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link] The fact that you have to install it, is no good. The reason I use Vi for quick editing is because I can depend on it to be there. If I have to work substantially more then I will think of installing something, and in this case why not go with the real thing.
Difference in startup speed. Posted Nov 14, 2006 21:00 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] But you have to install *everything* on a Linux box, or how does it getthere? It's not as if we have a `core' like the BSDs.
(In any case the argument is nearly-inverted on Solaris boxes, which tend
|
|||||||||||||