Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey, it's not fair to make fun of emacs now that I've mentioned vim
> favourably so many times ;-)
>
> Seriously, nothing about emacs seems big or slow today. It has been
> outbloated by pretty much everything else. Who could have imagined /that/
> ten years ago?
Actually, it hasn't. Then again, maybe it depends on how you use it. I
start an xemacs at login, and leave it running forever. Just like I do
a shell. It slowly accretes buffers as time goes by, many of them
useless (why do I need to keep traces of 14 POP sessions around?).
As a result, xemacs is usually the second biggest thing on my system
I treat most programs that way. I never exit them, just unmap them.
My WM is configured to map a single existing window, launch the
application if there is no existing window, or offer a menu of windows
if there's more than one existing window when I ask for an
application. So I tend to have a lot of old, big processes on the
system. And xemacs is usually bigger than everything but X.
And people wondered when I complained that Mac OS 9 and Windows 98
crashed a lot :-).
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
