Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!gaynor From: gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: CPU time of editors (Was Re: stuff) Keywords: Emacs vi CPU efficiency Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 89 14:19:23 GMT References: <1686@wpi.wpi.edu> <3865@mipos3.intel.com> <1777@wpi.wpi.edu> <3878@mipos3.intel.com> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 15 The points nate@hobbes.intel.com makes are valid. The timings most likely do not the time used by subprocesses (and definitely not programs run during a temporary suspension) by the two editors, do they? (Please correct me post haste if I'm mistaken, so I can start talking out of a different side of my mouth!). GNU Emacs is a totally different animal than vi. It is an order of magnitude more functional, and performs a lot more intelligently than it's usually given credit for. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a significant portion of time is spent making frequent checkpoints and backups. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a significant portion of time is spent justifying text, which would have to otherwise be done by another process. Etc. I wonder if it's even possible to write a decent interface to another process in vi. Now, if you get all that extra functionality at a mere 4 times the cost, even 10 time the cost, you've got a tremendous bargain. Regards, [Ag] gaynor@rutgers.edu