Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpspkla!champagn
From: champagn@hpspkla.HP.COM (Robert R. Champagne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Finally...
Message-ID: <3490007@hpspkla.HP.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 89 19:54:33 GMT
References: <332@carroll1.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.
Lines: 22

>>Why is scrolling in ST WordWriter so much slower than the scrolling in the
>>LaserC program editor?
>>
>A major cause of the differences in scrolling speed could be that one is a
>word processor and the other a program editor.  Program editors are mostly
>line oriented and don't have to deal with text styles or formatting.
>Generally, the word processor has to do a little more with the text than a
>program editor.

Just as an aside (since Brian does not have Laser C), it appears that the
folks at Megamax designed the Laser C editor in much the same way that Tempus
editor was written: use "GEM windows, etc", but by-pass the GEM routines that
are used for "window updating" and write directly to screen memory. Notice
that the "scroll bar" and "arrows" in the Megamax editor windows are not
"standard" GEM?  And keeping the window "work area" on a word boundary greatly
increases the speed characters can be written.

This is the classic case of using either a "generic, all-purpose" routine
that works all the time, but takes into account ALL possible cases, 
or a specialized, efficient routine (MUCH more work for the programmer).

I suspect ST Writer simply uses the "standard" GEM window update procedures.