Xref: utzoo gnu.emacs.help:1539 comp.emacs:10381
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unreplyable!garbage
From: mjh@kernel.co.uk (Mark J Hewitt)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Loading compressed .el's
Message-ID: <11227.9103211036@arthur.kernel.co.uk>
Date: 21 Mar 91 10:36:31 GMT
References: <9103201842.AA24336@curley.osf.org>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Followup-To: gnu.emacs.help
Organization: Gatewayed from the GNU Project mailing list help-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu
Lines: 18

I'd be interested to know just how much time penalty vs. space saving
this trend for loading compressed .el[c]'s is.  After all, by not using
the byte compiled versions, or by off-line storing the .el sources and
loading only .elc's, there will be a considerable saving.  Using .el's
rather than .elc's must imply a load-time time penalty - which is what
compression must do in any case.

So the best saving is to off-line the .el's and compress the .elc's.

What are the time and space tradeoffs for all these options?

Mark J. Hewitt

bangpath: ...!ukc!kernel!mjh		JANET:	mjh@uk.co.kernel
voice:	  (+44) 532 444566		other:	mjh@kernel.co.uk
fax:	  (+44) 532 425456	    old style:  mjh%uk.co.kernel@uk.ac.ukc
paper:	Kernel Technology Ltd, Development Centre, 46 The Calls, Leeds,
	LS2 7EY, West Yorkshire, UK