Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!oliveb!mipos3!nate@hobbes.intel.com From: nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs Subject: Re: Relative cost of GNU Emacs vs Vi. Message-ID: <585@mipos3.intel.com> Date: 29 Jul 89 21:43:07 GMT References: <2992@blake.acs.washington.edu> Sender: news@mipos3.intel.com Reply-To: woodstock@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA Lines: 27 In-reply-to: mellon@zayante.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) Posting-Front-End: Gnews 2.0 In article , mellon@zayante (Ted Lemon) writes: >I don't think GNU emacs will win against vi in terms of machine usage. >The reason emacs is a win is because allows for more efficient use of >human time, not because it allows for more efficient use of CPU time. As an example of this, consider which editor would come out ahead if you were charging the user for every character that was sent to her terminal. GNU Emacs would win, since it is much more careful about screen updating than vi is. Of course, the tradeoff here is that GNU Emacs spends more CPU time than vi during a "scroll forward by a screenful" operation. >What you should be considering is why you're allotting computer >resources the way you are. Counting time on computers discourages >their use, and encourages poor programming and working practices. What's probably most important in your environment is to ensure that your limited resources are shared as fairly as possible among all the students. Ted's comment above might cause you to reexamine your methods for doing so. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate