Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!APPLE.COM!nli!jym
From: nli!jym@APPLE.COM
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: Relative cost of GNU Emacs vs Vi.
Message-ID: <8907282013.AA27587@nlp9>
Date: 28 Jul 89 20:13:03 GMT
References: <2992@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: jym@apple.com
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Natural Languages, Inc.
Lines: 14

I don't think "a comparison for simple text editing tasks" is a relevant
 way to judge Emacs; but if you must I would recommend that the comparison
  be done with a stripped-down version of Emacs.  In other words, don't count
   the disk space taken up by (for example) rmail.elc as a resource for
    simple editing.

I think a more relevant measure is productivity:  if your computing community
 can get things done more quickly with Emacs than with other editors, Emacs
  might win out overall.

If you do find a comparison, I suspect you'll find that Emacs is not slow
 (I've seen the code, it's quite efficient), but big (compared to simpler
  editors).  No surprises there . . .
   <_Jym_>