On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:13:31PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:24:11 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 16:19:03 +1000 > > Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > Nick Boyce <n...@steelyglint.org> writes: > > > > > > > I don't want to provoke any religious war here, and sorry if I offend > > > > anybody, but: > > > > > > That doesn't alter the fact that you've disparaged programs in terms > > > that state an absolute problem inherent to the program. This is not > > > helpful, because it implies that people who choose those programs are > > > wrong and should be disparaged themselves. > > > > I do disparage software when it seems ungood, but there is no implication > > from me that people who use that software are in any way to be disparaged - > > there may be many reasons why they're using that software, and my (possibly > > mistaken) opinion may even help them realise they have choices they didn't > > know about. We all have to start learning somewhere - and it never ends. > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > emacs is ridiculously heavy-weight > > > > > > That's an absolute statement of objective fact. > > > > I realise I should have scattered IM(H)Os all through my email, so lets > > start now: IMO it *is* an objective fact. emacs is *huge* (please don't > > ask me for numbers) and cumbersome and overengineered if what you want is a > > lightweight lean fast straightforward text editor (and I usually do). > > No, the ridiculous thing here is the contradiction: > "IMO it *is* an objective fact", > and it's immediately followed by a circular argument. > > Now, it's arguable that emacs is large compared with many other > editors. However, it contains a lot of functionality, and that means > lots of code. But just how important is the volume of code that's > available when you're actually editing a file? > > I'm typing on a i386 laptop with 500MB of memory. Editing a 25MB > file, the memory reported by top is > emacs 15% > nano 7.5% > > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search. > That's currently reading > firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28% > > By way of contrast, if I boot up the machine, start X (using the > fvwm window manager) and bring up the wunderground weather forecast > on opera (far faster than using firefox), the machine uses all > 500MB of memory and 300MB of the 1GB swap. As you can imagine, > it's not quick. > > So, with respect to this laptop, the size of emacs is irrelevant.
Interesting stats. I've heard a few times that Eclipse is a great editor for programmers including newbie programmers, and that "it only needs about a Gig of RAM and you're good to go". "You know, Java an' all..." :) Emacs is positively tiny in comparison, yet also "more advanced" in various ways - although Eclipse certainly has its "gui" fortes. > > I remember an operating system whose response to commands was > > only ever 'OK' or 'ER' .... I don't like to tell you what I > > thought about that, but some people liked it because it didn't > > waste their time with verbiage. > > OK would be rather verbose for Unix. :D That's almost cheeky response, but actually true - run a command and all you get is "an 8-bit integer result, which you have to interpret somehow, possibly ok, possibly some error, but depends on the program" :)
