| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Definition of software bloat - see "Emacs" (veering off-topic)Definition of software bloat - see "Emacs" (veering off-topic)Posted Feb 25, 2008 9:30 UTC (Mon) by debacle (subscriber, #7114)In reply to: Definition of software bloat - see "Emacs" (veering off-topic) by pr1268 Parent article: Emacs news: new maintainer, version 22 pretest
I don't believe that failing to read your file is caused by the memory consumption of Emacs itself. Maybe it's a bug in Emacs or whatever. By nowadays standards Emacs is absolutely not bloated. Compare it to other IDEs, such as Eclipse, or word processing tools like OpenOffice and you find Emacs very memory-friendly. I know some developers who have abandoned Emacs in the last five years and moved to Eclipse. Despite Eclipse being significantly more memory and CPU hungry - just because Eclipse is more powerful for them. I'm still hanging around with Emacs...
(Log in to post comments)
Definition of software bloat - see "Emacs" (veering off-topic) Posted Feb 25, 2008 9:37 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] I don't believe that failing to read your file is caused by the memory consumption of Emacs itself. Maybe it's a bug in Emacs or whatever. My smirky comment was intentionally facetious; I didn't mean to ignite a whole vi(m) vs. emacs flame war over it. That being said, I don't think my friend's error was caused by a "bug" or software defect; he received an intentional error message from Emacs when he attempted to open the file.
Definition of software bloat - see "Emacs" (veering off-topic) Posted Feb 25, 2008 21:47 UTC (Mon) by edschofield (subscriber, #39993) [Link] > Compare it to other IDEs, such as Eclipse, or word processing tools like OpenOffice and you find Emacs very memory-friendly. Exactly! And I am taller than the Japanese, richer than the Ethiopians, and have better teeth than the Molvianians.
|
|||||||||||